I was listening to a science show on the radio today and they were talking about one of the major threats to the loon population not being global warming or human encroachment but lead poisoning. Apparently the major cause of lead poisoning in loons is from fishing tackle – lead jig heads and such. Loons are long-lived and slow breeders, usually only about a chick and a half on average per mating pair per season. That means that their population is very delicately balanced and even a small upset can generate a spiral. There are three ways that loons absorb lead tackle. First, as you probably all know, they have no teeth. So what they do is scoop small pebbles from lake bottoms and swallow them. These pebbles act as grinders for when they consume fish whole. That means that anything under an ounce like a jig head or lead shot would be about the right size for them. Second, they diet on fish so if there are fish that have broken a line and trailing, say, lead shot, that fish will be a prime target for a loon that would naturally go after a wounded or erratic swimming fish. Finally, and this is my worst nightmare, loons can swallow a lure that’s still attached to a rod. Again, you may think that the incidence of one of these three possibilities would be quite small and it is – only affecting about 2% of the loon population but according to a major study conducted by the New Hampshire Fish and Game Commission it also represents 49% of all loon mortalities. New Hampshire is so far the only state to ban lead tackle under an ounce in weight. The thing is there are so many other substances that could be used in place of lead – tungsten, bismuth, rubber, stone composite being just a few examples. As anglers we should be aware of the situation and stop purchasing lead tackle and insist on alternatives from suppliers. We all know what it is like to hear the call of the loon, one of the most iconic sounds in canoe country. As anglers we all really need to embrace our long standing tradition as conservationists and do our bit to protect these very special birds.
Here's a link if you want to read more: Loons and lead

I remember this being an issue about a decade ago and there was some momentum to ban lead. But of course there was substantial push back from fisherman and the tackle industry. If there is clarity on the issue then the lead should be banned and phased out IMO.

I would give 5 years notice to allow industry time to adapt. The upheaval would not be so drastic and I suspect that the loons effected is not a great percentage. But responsible stewards we should be and as Kerry has pointed out other materials are available howbeit they are somewhat more expensive.

Are waterfowl hunters still using lead shot? Now that might be very expensive to shoot non-lead. Every shot you took would be like dollar bills flying through the air......

Lead shot for waterfowl has been banned since the early 90's. Still legal for upland game.

Some states have banned lead split shot sinkers also. I think alot of it is now a antimony or tin alloy. Not sure about jigheads.

They seem to move the goal post on the death by lead. I can remember when the stats first came out, 20 or more years ago?? and they said that 5% of dead Loons had lead in their system, meaning that 95% did not.
More recently (5-10 yrs??) they said that 25-50% of dead Loons had lead in their system, which is quite a variation.
So using their figures, isn't it possible that the Loons with lead in their body died of the same cause as those that did not??
Another interesting situation is the ingesting of lead shot killing Ducks, Geese, and Loons theory.
I don't know how many of you have driven through the city of Virginia, about 50 miles from Ely. If you do, drive by Mesabi Community College and notice the pond across from it, which is loaded with lead shot due to a trap club being located on the other side.
Be very careful, as you will have to drive through many HUGE ducks and geese that wander freely between the lawn of the college and cross the road to the pond.
With all the lead in that pond, there should be nothing but duck and goose bodies all over the place, but never heard any reports of that.

Well we needs be fair minded TGO. Lead does not kill immediately and is a slow process. If they are finding dead loons with lead poisoning I would surmise they are only finding a small fraction of the ones effected. Lots of animals go off to die in private places which are not so obvious. Given the low reproductive rates I would be careful not to be overly dismissive.

Now if we could just find a convenient way to poison cormorants ;-)
(I'm sorta kidding)

I would be curious to see if a study has been done on lead poisoning in waterfowl since we moved to steel shot 20+ yrs ago. A couple shotgun shells put more lead into a lake than I could in a yr w/ splitshots and sinkers.

It would seem to me this would be pretty conclusive if we switched to steel and lead poisioning went way down as it should have.

I don't ever recall seeing any studies though...

It is hard for me to believe a loon would eat a jig head. After all, they have a hook attached to them, right? If a loon were dumb enough to eat one, it would likely choke them to death rather than poison them. Also, 80% of a loon's diet is small fish. Maybe the fish are full of jig heads, but I doubt it. Since loons also forage for crustaceans and insect larvae, its likely they are picking up some lead shot. After all it has been used for centuries by waterfowl hunters and the wet lands are full of it.

I'm calling BS on blaming fishing tackle, especially jig heads.

Great to see more public information on this subject. I know a little about loons as I have studied them extensively and maintained a loon nesting raft with successful nesting for 9 years. A friend who is a U of M biologist and I have presented loon Q&A sessions at local lake association meetings.

KerryG is absolutely correct in that lead poisoning is a major cause of adult loon mortality. In chick through adolescent years there is predator losses to eagles, muskies, snapping turtles etc. and during nesting eggs can be lost to raccoons, skunks, gulls etc.. The exact percentage of deaths can be argued but I tend to believe wildlife biologists are publishing correct numbers from the data they are paid to collect.

Lead shot for waterfowl hunting was eliminated many years ago and has probably helped. However, much of this hunting happens in ponds, swamps and small back bays, places loons don't frequent often. Loons typically hunt for fish in deeper water as diving is their specialty.

Lead shot is a problem. Loons have a gizzard and need small pebbles to digest food, they get these from the lake bottoms and just scoop them up not telling the difference between stones and the lead. These bits of lead remain in the gizzard for a long period of time and gives the perfect chance to get in the blood stream and kill them.

Geese and ducks are much more prolific in reproduction and losses to lead poisoning do not affect the population as greatly or at least allow them to rebound faster.

Loons can easily ingest a 12" fish and are designed to handle spiny structures, taking down a jig head is no problem for that digestive system. Their gizzards use acids to help dissolve food and quickly eliminate the steel hooks leaving the lead to be more slowly dissolved.

A while back their was a program where tackle dealers would exchange non lead tackle for the old lead stuff you bring in. I found a report of an unscrupulous tackle shop reselling the lead tackle after collecting it after being paid for the non lead stuff they gave away in trade. To combat this I took all my lead tackle and melted it down before giving it to a friend who reloads ammo.

In general, why wouldn't we eliminate lead for small tackle and do what we can to help the loon population.

quote DeterminedOrange:

In general, why wouldn't we eliminate lead for small tackle and do what we can to help the loon population.

"

Good question. Aside from cost- if it were neutral, I can't think of a reason not too. Sure sinkers and splitshots have to be larger- but big deal. The only thing I can see it impacting would be jig heads and needing to use a larger jig.

I think price is the big issue. An example would be to compare lead ice jigs to tungsten ice jigs, another example would be running a one or two ounce bottom bouncer, I can't imagine the cost for tungsten or the size for another lead substitute.

quote mastertangler: "Well we needs be fair minded TGO. Lead does not kill immediately and is a slow process. If they are finding dead loons with lead poisoning I would surmise they are only finding a small fraction of the ones effected. Lots of animals go off to die in private places which are not so obvious. Given the low reproductive rates I would be careful not to be overly dismissive.


Now if we could just find a convenient way to poison cormorants ;-)
(I'm sorta kidding)"

Not dismissive mastertangler, just letting you know how much the figures vary. Granted, one will never find every dead loon, but these percentages are from the loons they do find with and without lead poisoning.
Now back to that pond in Virginia with the trap club for 20-30 years or longer being full of lead, ducks, and geese with no bodies to the best of my knowledge ever being found.
Any way to explain that????? :)

Fair enough TGO. I wonder how long the lead poisoning takes? Might take months or even years. Waterfowl might not die at the origin of ingestion.

indeed price is a major obstacle. But in the last 10 years tackle manufactures have been using other metals to achieve a better product and fisherman have generally embraced using top of the line hooks and metals along with the higher price.

As per trusting wildlife biologists........frankly, and it pains me to say this, i don't. I grew up wanting to be one. But I have seen political correctness and anti hunting / anti fishing as well as extreme environmentalism corrupt not only government but also science and that includes biologists. They have arrived at some "scientific conclusions" which are preposterous here is Florida and run contrary to truth and common sense. It used to be that outdoorsman, hunters and fisherman, wanted to be wildlife biologists. Not as much anymore but rather the opposite.........folk opposed to hunting and fishing and on board with the extreme environment movement. Thats what the Universities are churning out these days.

Amen!!!!
If science was allowed to be separated from politics it would be great, but in this day and age, everyone tweaks "scientific evidence" to fit their agenda.
When someone questions the validity of their statements, they use the time worn saying, "the discussion is over, and it's time to move on!"
Unfortunately, I do not ever see this changing!

quote mastertangler: ".... Thats what the Universities are churning out these days. "

I'm having a bad week and then read a comment like this. Think i'll just puke...

quote bobbernumber3: "

quote mastertangler: ".... Thats what the Universities are churning out these days. "

I'm having a bad week and then read a comment like this. Think i'll just puke..."

Same, but I guess he wants to blame someone, so why not generalize. Sad.

quote naturboy12: "

quote bobbernumber3: "

quote mastertangler: ".... Thats what the Universities are churning out these days. "

I'm having a bad week and then read a comment like this. Think i'll just puke..."

Same, but I guess he wants to blame someone, so why not generalize. Sad."

Wow after all the other stuff he posted supporting lead ban and offering ideas on how to make it happen this is what you two gravitate too. Sounds personal and if that upset you I feel sorry for you and those around you to be honest...

I am tired of the small group who constantly picks on or nitpicks certain posters on this board because they don't like them for personal or political reasons--so they look for any small attack they can make--grow up--we're not in high school anymore or go back to the other board I left because of posters like you.

T

I suppose I shouldn't generalize but if you don't think there is a strong left tilt to whats going on in Universities then we can agree to disagree. Its basically what is considered "common knowledge".

At Isle Royale this past summer I got to talk with three graduates out of what ever University is in Madison. One was working on her masters in Wildlife Biology, one had a degree in economics and one had a masters degree in a field I have forgotten. All 3 fully embraced Progressive causes without question. They showed no intellectual curiosity to the many points I brought up and were quite frankly completely unaware of anything but what was the mantra of the left.

We spoke at length for at least an hour. The wildlife biologist used recent pollen samples to promote her belief of global warming. In her eyes that was proof positive because it sounded very scientific (couldn't be attributed to say perhaps an increase in agriculture but I digress). She was completely unaware of scientists falsifying data (Climategate), that the computer projections are so off as to make a language change from "global warming" to "climate change", that the oft quoted "99% of scientist agree" is a hoax (100 scientist polled if they earth was in a warming trend and left off if it was man caused) and that the famed Hockey stick graph is bad math. She was unaware of anything which ran contrary to the narrative. It bothered me that she was not intellectually curious and in fact intolerant of any perspective which didn't go along with what she embraced.

Is that proof as to what is coming out of our Universities. No not really, but it is not so far off base as to make one wretch either.

... Yeah, Great.

Back to loons and lead. I for one am interested In the topic...

Back to Loons and lead.........Hey at least I got something right ;-)

Has anyone ever had a Loon hit their lure? I did some 20 years ago again at Isle Royale. I was throwing a small curly tail on a jig head and got a strike. I set the hook and the hook bent out straight. While i was eyeballing the bent hook a loon popped up right where I got the strike. Pretty sure it was the loon since I hadn't had a bite all day. Never had it happen again that I know of.

Lead indigestion

My dad once caught a loon while walleye fishing. We were using Lindy rigs and we couldn't drop the damn things down without the loon chasing it. We figured someone had been feeding it minnows, as it was very "tame". Anyway, we thought it had left and continued to fish. Then dad hooked what we thought was a giant fish until the loon broke the surface. We tried to reel it in to free it, but the drag was no match and we had to cut the line. I'm sure it died as it probably had 200 feet of fishing line attached to it along with a hook in its throat.

My next point has to deal with eagles. They are so prevalent now and love to eat baby loons. My parent's lake has a pair of loons that nest every year in their bay. This was the first year in EIGHT years that an eagle didn't get the chick. They don't kill the chick after it's hatched either, they let it fatten up for a few weeks first. Makes me kind of hate eagles. Sorry America.

Never caught one, but they are often around when I am fishing. I do worry about it but so far so good.

Back to lead, as mutz said I think the biggest issues are cost and availability. It is getting easier but still if you want to go lead free you really have to search for quality replacements.

It is slowly happening on it’s own as some of the tackle alternatives are more dense than lead allowing you to make heavier smaller lures. In many cases this allows a superior presentation. But still the cost is higher so the average angler will not switch in their own.

I am of the opinion that even a small amount of loons dying is worth taking action but do need to point out that the New England study referenced in the OP is widely considered an outlier in the research and not the standard results. I did not do an exhaustive search but Minnesota and other states studies show the loon lead poisoning rate from tackle to account from 1.9% to 6.5% of all loon deaths while the New England study showed lead poisoning from fishing tackle at 44%. To my knowledge the New England study has never been reproduced (If I am wrong please point it out—this is interesting to me). To any one with a research background that means this is not reliable. It may be true, but there is also a good chance it is not...I will also point out that the original OP further skewed the results or report, probably unintentionally but none the less it is an example of using research and combining numbers to further prove a point by reporting the loon death rate was 49%— some of the lead poisoning were non-tackle reasons. If you read the original research they clearly make the distinction. If the show the OP listened to did not make this distinction then I’d question their motives and be careful believing what they say. I know I am contradicting my own stance, but it bothers me to when all the research is not presented...I personally think there is enough to take action without exaggerating results and creating mistrust.

After all that I still think we need to move towards lead free I know I am personally looking for alternatives to my current gear. Over time I am concerned the numbers will go up and more lead is being deposited each year or what if the NE study isn’t an outlier. I want to do my part before that.

T

We have know about this for half a century. This is nothing new. This will not stop with fishermen doing the right thing. This will only stop went we ban the production and use of lead weights and jig heads. When I was a kid I shot geese with #2 lead, ducks with #4-6 lead and pheasant with 7 lead. Why, because it worked great, better than anything at the time. Now they introduced better non lead options for bird hunters. Then any migratory birds had to be hunted with non lead shot. And everyone switched over, and have not looked back. If people really want this fixed you need to look at the reason zero laws have been made to stop the use of lead. It worked in bird hunting it will work for fishing too. Maybe a better reason is to follow the money, that will tell you why we are still using lead.

i have heard on very rare occasions a loon being caught while fishing , very rare. there eye sight is extremely good i'm with AndySG on this subject , but i can only imagine how much lead is down in rocks through out the bwca , thus lead being in the water itself , isnt this what killed many romans ? lead water pipes ?
people talk about many issues on keeping the clean water of the BW clean.
i would be on board if minnesota made lead fishing weights illegal .

quote Grizzlyman: "

quote DeterminedOrange:


In general, why wouldn't we eliminate lead for small tackle and do what we can to help the loon population.


"

Good question. Aside from cost- if it were neutral, I can't think of a reason not too. Sure sinkers and splitshots have to be larger- but big deal. The only thing I can see it impacting would be jig heads and needing to use a larger jig. "

Actually Tungsten jigs are smaller. I have switched to them for almost all of my ice fishing jigs. I have switched to tin weights which may be a little bigger but they make tungsten weights as well which are smaller. To me it is a no brainer to switch but I understand there is a portion of the population who will refuse and would probably still use lead even if it was banned.

quote Gadfly: "

quote Grizzlyman: "

quote DeterminedOrange:



In general, why wouldn't we eliminate lead for small tackle and do what we can to help the loon population.



"

Good question. Aside from cost- if it were neutral, I can't think of a reason not too. Sure sinkers and splitshots have to be larger- but big deal. The only thing I can see it impacting would be jig heads and needing to use a larger jig. "

Actually Tungsten jigs are smaller. I have switched to them for almost all of my ice fishing jigs. I have switched to tin weights which may be a little bigger but they make tungsten weights as well which are smaller. To me it is a no brainer to switch but I understand there is a portion of the population who will refuse and would probably still use lead even if it was banned. "

No doubt tungsten jigs are awesome- but it's way too expensive for sinkers/splitshots- even probably the larger summer fishing jigs.

For the big stuff I think it need to be iron/steel.

Are tin or tungsten split shot worth a darn? By that, I mean are they soft like lead, or are they more hard? If it's the latter, I'd worry more about them nicking the line and weakening it

Also- I have no first hand knowledge- but I'd imagine Tungsten is probably a S O B to manufacture as well. The melting point is much much higher than steel. Tungsten is used as the electrode in welding...

Lead is really perfect because it's abundant, melts really easy, and is soft. These are all tough hurdles to overcome.

quote shock: "... , but i can only imagine how much lead is down in rocks through out the bwca , thus lead being in the water itself... ."

Zero to none. The rocks there are generally igneous that are felsic or mafic in nature, or metamorphosed igneous rocks like gneiss and greenstone. Rocks like these are primarily composed of silica, iron, aluminum, calcium and magnesium.

quote Grizzlyman: "...Lead is really perfect because it's abundant, melts really easy, and is soft. These are all tough hurdles to overcome. "

Lead also has the support of special interest groups that are effective in lobbying politicians.
group fights lead ammo ban

I imagine there is a lot more lead going into lakes and rivers from lead shot compared to lead jigs and sinkers.

quote inspector13: "

quote shock: "... , but i can only imagine how much lead is down in rocks through out the bwca , thus lead being in the water itself... ."

Zero to none. The rocks there are generally igneous that are felsic or mafic in nature, or metamorphosed igneous rocks like gneiss and greenstone. Rocks like these are primarily composed of silica, iron, aluminum, calcium and magnesium.


"

I think he is referring to people losing lead jigs and sinkers from snags or snapped lines ending up at the bottom of the lake.

The old days of waterfowl hunting with lead shot had to be the worst contributor in some areas and this has been eliminated successfully with legislation. I'm not a big fan of adding laws as we already have so many, but sometimes it is necessary to make a faster change to the way things are done.

As far as lead split shot and jig heads, it will likely take a law to get rid of that too. Hopefully technology and new materials will be in place to make the transition smoother and be more accepted.

It doesn't seem like there could be much concentration of tackle on the bottom and most places there isn't. However, some areas do get quite a buildup, I have a road next to the lake I live on and in the spring I can take a canoe over every night and pull 6 -10 lines with bobbers, weights and jig heads attached to stumps and logs in the water. One day this spring I got 25! Of course this only lasts until the crappies are done spawning but the tackle left behind is substantial and builds up over the years.

As far as the differences in the mortality studies, I wonder if it is related to the concentration of the birds? In New England they are in larger groups feeding in the ocean and it may be more likely to find the bodies, especially with the abundance of large beaches. In MN the loons are scattered in often remote lakes, usually with a thousand acres or so of water per pair. Just a thought.

quote DeterminedOrange: "The old days of waterfowl hunting with lead shot had to be the worst contributor in some areas and this has been eliminated successfully with legislation.
"

State regulations are in place that have helped but Federal Lands are another story. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reversed a previous order to phase out lead ammo and tackle on 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuges... this was his first official act.

The advantage of using non-lead is it has a different feel to it—it is harder thus you get a better feel or feedback through the line of what is happening on the bottom. Hopefully detect strikes better or stay away form snags, I know that is the claim of some fisherman, but I haven’t used it enough to say for sure.

T

quote bobbernumber3: "

quote DeterminedOrange: "The old days of waterfowl hunting with lead shot had to be the worst contributor in some areas and this has been eliminated successfully with legislation.
"

State regulations are in place that have helped but Federal Lands are another story. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reversed a previous order to phase out lead ammo and tackle on 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuges... this was his first official act."

Are you sure? I'm almost 100% positive you can't use lead shot for waterfowl anywhere, including federal lands. Maybe you are thinking of lead bullets and sinkers?

Change of subject just slightly.
From us old old Timers I remember when the push was to get lead taken out of our gas(was that like mid 70's?),anyhow it was a huge political issue and some said lead wasn't doing any harm to the environment and vechiles engines would seize and blow up in short order.
Well lead was taken out engines,result was engines lasting longer and much cleaner. I also remember changing spark plugs like every 6000 miles with lead fouling them. Now 60,000 to 100,000 miles on a set of spark plugs happens quite frequently.

We can change if needed and sometimes to the better.

quote walleyevision: "

quote bobbernumber3: "

quote DeterminedOrange: "The old days of waterfowl hunting with lead shot had to be the worst contributor in some areas and this has been eliminated successfully with legislation.
"

State regulations are in place that have helped but Federal Lands are another story. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reversed a previous order to phase out lead ammo and tackle on 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuges... this was his first official act."

Are you sure? I'm almost 100% positive you can't use lead shot for waterfowl anywhere, including federal lands. Maybe you are thinking of lead bullets and sinkers?"

you're 100% right. No lead on waterfowl. period.

I would assume this has more to do with upland game like pheasants and grouse.

quote Gadfly: "

quote inspector13: "

quote shock: "... , but i can only imagine how much lead is down in rocks through out the bwca , thus lead being in the water itself... ."

Zero to none. The rocks there are generally igneous that are felsic or mafic in nature, or metamorphosed igneous rocks like gneiss and greenstone. Rocks like these are primarily composed of silica, iron, aluminum, calcium and magnesium.



"

I think he is referring to people losing lead jigs and sinkers from snags or snapped lines ending up at the bottom of the lake. "

correct gadfly ;) , DeterminedOrange mentioned getting alot of tackle from certain spots with logs around and there have been a few comments on here , about people swimming from camp and seeing logs with many many lures/jigs on them. with the volume of water in the BW is that a factor in the water as far as PPM for lead ? i dont know ? but i do know from history class many romains did die from having lead water pipes.

quote shock: ...with the volume of water in the BW is that a factor in the water as far as PPM for lead ? i dont know ? but i do know from history class many romains did die from having lead water pipes. "

Unless the lead oxidizes or forms other compounds, it is not soluble in water under natural conditions. This webpage even addresses lead poisoning of ancient Romans.

quote walleyevision: "

quote bobbernumber3: "

quote DeterminedOrange: "The old days of waterfowl hunting with lead shot had to be the worst contributor in some areas and this has been eliminated successfully with legislation.
"

State regulations are in place that have helped but Federal Lands are another story. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke reversed a previous order to phase out lead ammo and tackle on 150 million acres of National Wildlife Refuges... this was his first official act."

Are you sure? I'm almost 100% positive you can't use lead shot for waterfowl anywhere, including federal lands. Maybe you are thinking of lead bullets and sinkers?"

I know the post makes it sound more ominous than it was, I thought it might be allowing lead shot again but I researched it. Zinke reversed an Obama Executive order that was issued basically the day he left office. It never took effect, current laws of use of lead use and bans still apply. The executive order phased out all lead bullets and tackle over time. I think the controversy was I am not sure there are competent alternatives to lead bullets so basically it was seen as a possible hunting ban on federal lands. I only hunt pheasants so I really don’t know about the use of non-lead bullets?


T

It is time we looked at sustainability instead of profits and costs. Sometimes change is necessary and this is one of them.

quote inspector13: "

quote shock: ...with the volume of water in the BW is that a factor in the water as far as PPM for lead ? i dont know ? but i do know from history class many romains did die from having lead water pipes. "

Unless the lead oxidizes or forms other compounds, it is not soluble in water under natural conditions. This webpage even addresses lead poisoning of ancient Romans.


"

Lead is typically not soluble in water, however, the water in the BWCA is very soft and is slightly acidic (pH of approximately 5.5 depending on the lake).

The article you mention says "Lead compounds are generally soluble in soft, slightly acidic water." So the is a chance that over time if the concentration of tackle is high enough that some lead could be present in the water. Likely not enough to affect us or the loons (unless they eat the tackle , as was previously mentioned).

So while I don't know how much of a concern the contamination of lead tackle in the BWCA is currently, I believe that it is our responsibility to do everything we can to use the knowledge available to us to prevent it from becoming something that could have an impact on the ecosystem. They are around 5x more expensive per jig head, but to me its an investment worth making. Too each their own though...

Plus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Adazf1kc64 :)

Yes, it says lead compounds are generally soluble in that type of water, compounds being the key word. Lead shot and sinkers are made of elemental lead, and very little else.

Lead poisoning in the environment is due to wildlife ingesting the shot and sinkers, not because the water is contaminated with a high concentration of dissolved lead. If so we would be seeing advisories galore since fish would also be poisoned, and poisonous too. I assume the loons eat those things since they are the right size to help aid in digestion in their gizzard. So yes, do what you wish with regards to lead alternatives, but don’t fear the concentration of lead in the water.

I'm not educated on the subject of acidic water and the leeching of lead........but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that if a body of water is acidic enough to cause harmful releases of lead then it might not support much life to begin with. Just a thought.......

Sustainability? What does that mean? I gave always been suspicious of the term as it is the pet vernacular of the extreme environmental movement.

Pinetree makes an excellent point about leaded gas. However, I will point out that in the end the robust debate concluded that unleaded gas would be superior for the very reasons you have pointed out and it was implemented in spite of the forces arrayed against. And that is why I like debate which is not politically correct but strives to achieve clarity and truth.

Is lead a threat to healthy loon populations? Is it a threat to watersheds? Or is it much ado about nothing? I honestly can admit that I don't know.

I wonder if the lead poisoning could be attributed to something else? Are they finding dead loons having died of lead poisoning and merely attributing it to lead sinkers as the likely cause? Or are they actually finding lead sinkers and jig heads? Enquiring minds want to know.

Here in Florida we are not supposed to eat large Kingfish for example because as a predator of smaller fish they keep ingesting small amounts of lead over a long period of time which accumulates in their fatty tissues. Loons winter in Mexico if I am not mistaken. Could they be eating large amounts of baitfish which have lead in them?? Maybe the source of the lead isn't fishing tackle at all? Just a thought........I like to keep an open and intellectually curious mind. What say you?

They determine lead poisoning in birds like loons by looking at lead levels in the liver and other organs, they then look for lead in the body/stomach to determine the cause/mechanism of exposure. If they find lead sinkers or lead shot then it is reasonable to extrapolate that was the cause of the exposure. Especially when you can see the body has broken the lead down in the stomach. If they don’t find anything then they determine the loon died of lead poisoning but not necessarily from fishing lead, either another source or unknown. If it was unknown it still could of been from lead weights but but without specific evidence it has to be classified as unknown to be accurate.

T

quote mastertangler: " Loons winter in Mexico if I am not mistaken. "

The Common Loon winters in the coastal waters of the US. From tracking devices attached to MN/WI loons they tend to migrate to the Atlantic or Gulf coast. Below is link to neat tracking site (they make this migration in a couple days).

I haven't look at this in a while, I see most of the birds from this study have perished.

USGS loon migration

There has been other mortality issues from botulism due to Lake Michigan water quality. One of the more concerning events from some reports is loons not completing their migration and spending the winter or summer in other areas like Tennessee. This could just be some previously undocumented behavior but could be due to disturbances in habitat or health issues.

Just a note for those who don't know, one of the most interesting loon features is their ability to eat freshwater fish half the year and salt water fish the other half. They can do this because of a special gland to remove and excrete the salt out near their eye. Amazing birds.

this is a fun thread.......I like learning and expanding my frame of reference. I will never forget being out in the Middle Grounds (an area of hard bottom 60 miles off the coast of Tampa) and hearing a Loon. I was completely astonished. It was by itself and I haven't ever seen another one offshore.

Maybe I am remembering "Gulf of Mexico" as to the wintering grounds?

In any event I believe it is possible it is possible to have a thriving free market economy which enables liberty and allows the citizenry "the pursuit of happiness" while still being responsible stewards of the environment. Clarity, however is key. And to achieve clarity knowledge must not be obscured.

The problem we have IMO is there is so much disinformation and outright lying that folks don't know what to believe anymore. Whats true and whats not is very difficult to distinguish when duplicity becomes a means to an end. We see it in politics and we see it in environmental extremism as well.

Most people want to do the right thing. If it can honestly be shown that lead sinkers and lead jigs are harming healthy populations of such a magnificent bird I would like to think most folks would be on board with a lead ban.

Heres another question.........do the birds pass the sinkers? I swallowed a lead split shot once (idiot!) while ice fishing. I sort of freaked out and got myself to the hospital where they told me it would most likely pass. How does the lead remain in the birds?

No they don’t pass the lead in most instances, that’s why it is so bad for them.

T

yes but it takes a long time gizzard

I think a lead ban should be initially targeted to areas where it poses a problem. Does that make sense? That way you give industry an opportunity to adapt.

I would be curious to have the research from the pro lead side brought forth as well and let a debate ensue. If lead is having a major impact I am somewhat surprised that the law has not already been changed. It seems like it would take more more than just lobbying efforts that would prevent it........there were lobbying efforts to allow lead in house paint, auto fuel and waterfowl ammo but those failed. So I am not buying that evil greedy corporations are whats preventing a ban. Certainly they have a vested interest in business as usual but they are not "all powerful".

So perhaps the research is inconclusive or lead deaths are shown to be so marginal as to be insignificant. Still it does get ones attention, or at least it should.

In the 1960's my Great Aunt and Uncle spent a few summers in the arctic and a whole year in the Brooks Range of Alaska collecting data to find out the effects of DDT in bird eggs. The data they and others documented was conclusive and helped lead to the ban on the insecticide. I used the word conclusive as the data suggests the cause and if one believes the data it was quite obvious what was causing reductions in certain bird populations.

Some don't believe data brought forth by researchers simply because everything is a conspiracy or they don't like the results. Some would say they have been seeing the same number of loons for 60 years in lakes where they fish with lead tackle. A valid observation but a very narrow scope.

Lead tackle does kill loons, hard to debate that. Simple solution is to eliminate it but complex in that it has to be done in ways that don't make it impossible to have successful fishing. I'd say there should be a deadline set and allow the market to drive how it is accomplished in that time frame.

Researchers is a whole nuther subject isn't it? Forgive me if I don't take the word of "researchers" as gospel as some of the scientific community has been (and quite frankly has always been throughout history) corrupted to various degrees by political forces as well as money and often both.

Conspiracy? The word has a negative connotation but when hundreds of millions of dollars, for example, is spent on grants to "study" global warming the results are rather predictable are they not particularly when little or no resources are allocated to study the opposing possibility i.e. that climate change may be a natural phenomena and to be expected wether man is present on the planet or absent entirely.

And of course one can glean the pages of history where science has gotten it 180 degrees wrong. If there is a conspiracy it lies not in people doubting the veracity of scientific claims but rather within the realm of science itself. There is a precious few power brokers who decide who is worthy to have papers published and who is worthy to receive grants. This scenario tempers open and objective scientific research as to run contrary to the agenda (political correctness) is to put ones future success in doubt. And in fact it may lead to the destruction of ones career if objections are raised strenuously enough.

As someone who aspired to be a scientist (my folks thought I had a "problem" as I spent all my time peering into a microscope) this pains me as I believe that truth, reality and clarity of thought should lead the way. But when science is pressured to arrive at preconceived results due to political agendas you cannot blame folk for being skeptical and that rightly so.

There isn’t any controversy about lead killing loons, birds, heck even people. Exposure is bad for any creature.

The only controversy is the effect on the population, it isn’t really a controversy more of different studies show different things. The death rate varies from 1.9% to 44% from lead in studies. Most studies are somewhere in between those numbers. The argument is you have the anti-lead crowd touting the 44% study and the pro-lead group touting the 1.9%. As in all things it would be reasonable to assume they are both wrong and the truth is somewhere in the middle. So you have to ask your self how many deaths are too much 5%, 10%, 40%? To take action. My personal threshold is pretty low. why not do something if even a small amount is affected?

Although I don’t subscribe to the same level of conspiracy as MT fudging research does exist. I don’t believe it is widespread though. The problem is when lay people only quote the numbers or research that proves their point and ignore the rest. Both sides do it...it was done by both in this whole thread. The problem with that is it creates a mistrust of research or a mistrust in the argument.

T

There is quite a few studies also showing Bald Eagles that are found dead died of lead poisoning. Yes maybe compared to the total population it is small. But it is significant percent in the total kill. What I am saying maybe the population wouldn't vary much,but what is dying is due to lead poisoning ingested.

Totally agree on many points here. There is information from one side, information from the other and the truth in the middle somewhere.

For the record I also think climate change is real but not caused by man. The fluctuations in temperature have been going on since the earth was formed, billions of years before mankind existed on the earth. Now, does our burning and tilling affect it? Well of course it doesn't help but our affect on the earth is probably more localized and maybe giving ourselves credit (or condemnation) for all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere (if the amount is actually abnormal) is thinking too mighty of ourselves.

I used the word conspiracy to describe how I see people react to any debate with automatic blame to anyone who is trying to collect data and form an opinion. Much money has been wasted on these studies but much has also been spent well. My late friend who was a professional archaeologist told me many stories about the things he was accused of doing or not getting done. It sounds very difficult to make everyone happy when working in the scientific community, especially when the money to do the work comes from the taxpayers.

Speaking of eagles. They did a great job making a comeback over the last 30 years, too good in fact. Since eagles really are the only threat besides man to larger loons, they do have an effect on the population.

In my loon nesting situation, last winter some eagles built a nest about a hundred yards from my loon nesting raft and the loons didn't come back this summer. On the lake I live on their are three eagles nests (all new last winter I think) and in my surveys this year found no loon chicks that make it to adulthood.

Just like wolves vs. moose, we have eagles vs. loons.

The studies are 100% correct and honest loons die from lead,the question you can ask is it significant in the population to do away with lead and is any mortality too much. That is the call.

Sometimes as we see on this forum,some individuals will call people dishonest to get to their own desired outcome.
You can question any study(and should) and examine it and that is what a good scientist does. Look at the varialbles involved. Many states and the Federal Government have done their own studies including Minnesota DNR staff on this issue.

quote DeterminedOrange: "Speaking of eagles. They did a great job making a comeback over the last 30 years, too good in fact. Since eagles really are the only threat besides man to larger loons, they do have an effect on the population.


In my loon nesting situation, last winter some eagles built a nest about a hundred yards from my loon nesting raft and the loons didn't come back this summer. On the lake I live on their are three eagles nests (all new last winter I think) and in my surveys this year found no loon chicks that make it to adulthood.


Just like wolves vs. moose, we have eagles vs. loons.
"

A individual on a local lake in my area witnessed a loon kill a baby duck,than a short time later a eagle killed a baby loon.
Probably what is much harder on Loons is egg eaters like sea gulls,otters etc. Snapping turtles are tough on little ones. It is a tough world out there.

Yes habitat and disturbance by humans lead the decline. I think loons came back significantly with the end of DDT and dieldrin(sp) also.

Tim I only go where facts lead me and wether positions articulated are for or against my positions I am quick to knock down and dispel "conspiracy" theories which are intellectually dishonest and based on conjecture or wishful thinking.

The premise I have that science has been (and frankly has always been) corrupted by politics only takes some thoughtful analysis and some historical digging. For example when it was first presented that the earth might be round and not the center of the universe heresy was the charge leveled and if I am not mistaken that famous notable figure was put to death.

There is a lot of water under the bridge and space and time does not allow further fleshing out on the subject but you understand my point.

Heretofore I had always placed considerable weight with the scientific community as per their objectivity and ascribed to them the highest of motives. But they are only people after all and as I have been on the planet these 56 years I have come to understand that human nature is easily influenced regardless its aspirations towards nobility. Am I throwing the entire scientific community under the bus? Well yes and no. I admire the intellect and pursuit of knowledge.........on the other hand I despise the pressures which are brought to bear from outside of science to insure an arrival at a predetermined conclusion i.e. political correctness.

Climate change is a perfect example of what I am talking about. There are BILLIONS of dollars promoting climate change from disparate and varied groups. The globalists want to see a redistribution of wealth (The Paris Climate accord was much about reparations from wealthy countries, particularly the U.S. to 3rd world countries) while here on the domestic front you have the Utopian Statists (Progressives) who see carbon credits as the method to control industry. Carbon credits BTW will hurt the very people the Progressives claim to care about (poor) as corporate costs will be passed down to the consumer but I digress.......Plus it will be fraught with crony capitalism as carbon credits could be "bought" for a price of course. Why we would want politicians, who generally have never run anything, in charge of corporations is terrifying and a certain "Road to Serfdom" (Fredrick Hayek) but I am getting off track.

This concept of a rather smallish group of power brokers deciding (of course!) who gets grant money and whose work gets published in the scientific community was first introduced to me via Jim Tour. Mr Tour is widely considered one of the foremost chemists in the world and thus beyond the reach of punitive measures. It was revelatory when he stated that to go against the politically established narratives is to put ones career in jeopardy. Check him out, I find his personal statements quite fascinating and fair minded. So, far from attributing conspiracies to science being corrupted via political correctness I use logic and sound premise to arrive at conclusions. I believe it is in the Evolution / creation link where he briefly discusses punitive measures taken against others who don't follow the accepted and expected narratives.

Jim Tour

OMG... but, your previous post was correct.
"I honestly can admit that I don't know. "

What have the eagle and loon populations been over the last 50 years?

quote bobbernumber3: "OMG... but, your previous post was correct.
"I honestly can admit that I don't know. ""

Whats this? A rebuttal? "OMG"? This isn't 5th grade.

quote AmarilloJim: "What have the eagle and loon populations been over the last 50 years?"

Talking Minnesota I would say both up. The Eagle was rare in Minnesota in the early 70's. Now it is fairly abundant or better.

I don't think loons are doing as well in many eastern states?

Years ago I read an article about the Franklin Expedition who perished in the Arctic in middle 1800's. A research team analyzed their remains and found a high level of lead traces. They associated it with part of the reason these guys were making very bad decisions. The lead came from canned goods sealed with lead. I threw out all my old leaded spam cans from my grandfathers stash because my wife has been declaring my diminishment for years and started buying these non-leaded jigs.

hawnjigs@yahoo.com
Keith is a great person and has everything I need.
In the 70's the larger population of loons across the BWCA was obvious to me. It was a big deal to see an eagle. Now we see eagles every day on every lake. Possums and coyotes are moving north. Many things have changed. I read that some loon wintering grounds have changed.

Congratulations Kerry G who started this thread on your photo this month in the photo contest of the Milky Way. Stunning photo.

quote zika: "Congratulations Kerry G who started this thread on your photo this month in the photo contest of the Milky Way. Stunning photo."

Actually that was posted last year but thank you very kindly mentioning it.

It is ironic that we can congratulate and bash science at the same time. I guess we just like science that we personally agree with. I don't see the historical problem with scientific acceptance as political but more religious. The politics comes in when we simply have unlimited and unvalidated information available, extreme polarization and political/religious blending. Is every country on the planet wrong, except for the right wing faction in the USA? I kind of doubt it, especially given that many influential people in that group fall under the religious (Evangelical) umbrella which leads back to the religious aspects of this intense dislike of anything which contradicts historical religious beliefs. Look it up. There is plenty written about it. Politics, religion, and effective FREEDOM are no happy menage a trois.

I appreciate your perspective Mapsguy.

A few thoughts......Did you consider the Jim Tour link? Here you have what is largely considered one of the top chemists in his field telling his students at a major university to not voice their doubts about controversial subjects such as evolution if they value their careers. This punishment of those who question such topics as Global Climate change (changed from Global Warming because the earth isn't following computer projections) is well documented. The intolerance is stunning.

When you suggest the entire world believes something which the "right" (you single out evangelical christians) shows the intolerance and political correctness of which I speak. I am assuming you speak of "Climate Change"? Do you understand that "the entire world" does not subscribe to climate change as a goal of saving the planet but rather a way to redistribute wealth, more specifically the United States wealth. Of course "the rest of the world" wants the U.S. to sign on to the Paris Climate Accord which would transfer tens of billions of American dollars to other countries on the premise that we are at fault. Do you now understand the nexus between politics and science?

There are plenty of scientists who do not subscribe to man caused climate change. But how would you know their opinions? There are tens of billions of dollars in play to establish the narrative. Those who question the veracity of the science are punished or destroyed. The goal is what has been the motivation of man since the beginning.........power and control. Convince the populace of their imminent demise and only through prompt and noble action can the calamity be prevented. Paint those who hold their hand up and say "um, exscuse me" as "bad people" who are ignorant (flat earthers).

FWIW.......being a person of faith and a person of science is not mutually exclusive. Just ask Mr Tour or the vast myriad of Scientists and inventors throughout history which have relied on the "Spirit of Reality" (Holy Spirit) to guide them with their work.

Masterangler, The use of the term "Climate Change" is a way better, and more accurate, description than "Global Warming", because a warming climate changes multiple elements of the climate, including rain and snowfall, wind patterns, length of growing seasons, etc.

The Scientific Method can help us understand the impact of 7 billion people on the climate of the Earth--- but cannot prove, disprove, or characterize any of the gods that mankind has invented over the many millennia.

quote AndySG: "It is hard for me to believe a loon would eat a jig head. After all, they have a hook attached to them, right? If a loon were dumb enough to eat one, it would likely choke them to death rather than poison them. Also, 80% of a loon's diet is small fish. Maybe the fish are full of jig heads, but I doubt it. Since loons also forage for crustaceans and insect larvae, its likely they are picking up some lead shot. After all it has been used for centuries by waterfowl hunters and the wet lands are full of it.


I'm calling BS on blaming fishing tackle, especially jig heads."

Totally agree

quote arctic: "Masterangler, The use of the term "Climate Change" is a way better, and more accurate, description than "Global Warming", because a warming climate changes multiple elements of the climate, including rain and snowfall, wind patterns, length of growing seasons, etc.


The Scientific Method can help us understand the impact of 7 billion people on the climate of the Earth--- but cannot prove, disprove, or characterize any of the gods that mankind has invented over the many millennia."

Yes I agree that the scientific method cannot prove or disprove the existence of a supreme being. Rather I only need look around at the very creation for it clearly declares the existence of a designer. To conclude that what is visible occurred via happenstance is fantasy land.

What say you about the computer projections being way off? Much of the clamor concerning the theory of climate change was predicated on the computer models. IMO that is why the haste to secure power is so forceful. It is why they continually say "the debate is over". As time goes on and the climate does not behave as per scientific and computer models the theory will be disproven. Since when has science ever said "the debate is over"? Doesn't sound like something a scientist would say.

As per the change from Global Warming to Climate Change.........you may accurately point out the advantages of a more precise terminology but I still disagree why the change was made. If the earth was warming as per the computer models then I believe Global Warming would still be in play. It simply sounds more ominous. The language was changed IMO so no matter if it is hot or cold, flood or drought, then it can be blamed on mankind. And if the populations can be convinced of imminent demise then they will empower governments and cede all power to a select few. It is the biggest con in the history of mankind with lots of disparate interest groups with varying motives frantically pushing it. Are you aware that the originator of global warming, Berkeley professor Rodger Reville, largely recanted his own work and was shocked that such a political movement was developed via his work. He suggested far more study. Of course the powers that be largely smeared him saying that he was old and feeble of mind (the destruction of the naysayers).

We can however agree that less gunk in the air is a good thing. I am all for pollution controls for a cleaner healthier environment. What I am not for is giving politicians complete control over our industry and markets via carbon credits. Such a move would certainly result in poverty and misery..........We can all meet in the rice paddies if the population gives the masterminds (utopian statist) control. It is the "Road to Serfdom" (an excellent read BTW).