March 19, 2020

The Honorable Carrie Ruud The Honorable John Persell Chair Chair Environment and Natural Resources Policy Environment and Natural Resources and Legacy Finance Committee Policy Committee 3233 State Senate Bldg. 437 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bvld. St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55155

The Honorable Bill Weber The Honorable Jamie Becker-Finn Vice Chair Vice Chair Environment and Natural Resources Policy Environment and Natural Resources and Legacy Finance Committee Policy Committee 2109 Bldg. 559 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bvld. St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55 155

The Honorable Chris A. Eaton The Honorable Ranking Minority Member Republican Lead Environment and Natural Resources Policy Environment and Natural Resources and Legacy Finance Committee Policy Committee 2403 Minnesota State Senate Bldg. 311 Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. St. Paul, MN 55155 St. Paul, MN 55155

Dear Chair Ruud and Presell, Vice Chair Weber and Becker-Finn, Ranking Minority Member Eaton, and Republican Lead Lueck:

Our organizations represent hundreds of thousands of recreational fishermen and recreational fishing dependent businesses, including many from Minnesota. We are writing to express our strong opposition to SF 3892 and HF 3825, which would implement a statewide ban on the manufacture, sale and use of common fishing tackle containing lead.

This legislation would place unwarranted regulations on recreational fishing tackle, which would have a significant negative impact on Minnesota’s anglers and sportfishing businesses. Minnesota is one of the top five states nationally in recreational fishing expenditures, with the state’s 1.8 million recreational fishermen contributing $4.2 billion to the economy and supporting 26,794 jobs.

Similar bans have been considered and rejected in Minnesota in the past, and the basis for those rejections has not changed. As recently as November 4th, 2019, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) denied a petition to adopt rules requiring non-toxic fishing tackle and non-toxic ammunition.

At a national level, on February 14, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rejected a petition to ban all lead fishing tackle on all U.S. waters, stating that the petitioners did not demonstrate that such a ban is "necessary to protect against an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment."

The ban proposed by SF 3892 and HF 3825 is likewise unjustified. Simply put, there has been no document evidence that lead fishing tackle is causing population-level impacts on any of the state’s wildlife species. Science-based fish and wildlife management has proven extremely successful for decades in the United States, and any lead restrictions need to be based on scientific data that supports the appropriate, localized action for a particular water body or wildlife population. Proponents of banning lead fishing tackle often cite impacts to loons and trumpeter swans, however these populations are stable or increasing throughout their range, including in Minnesota. For example, the statewide population of trumpeter swans increased 200% from 2010 to 2015.

Nevertheless, statewide efforts to raise angler awareness of lead fishing tackle mortality on individual birds continue, and Minnesota was recently awarded more than $6 million in Deepwater Horizon oil spill recovery funds to help support the state’s loon population. About $1.2 million will go toward the public awareness campaign called “Get the Lead Out”, which provides anglers with information on bird impacts and non-lead alternatives. These educational and voluntary efforts should continue to be the priority of the state, particularly considering the positive overall health of affected bird populations, instead of moving toward drastic and economically harmful regulations. In the absence of any scientific evidence of impacts to wildlife populations, the use of lead fishing tackle should be a personal decision as this is a social, not a biological, issue.

While supporters of lead fishing tackle bans often claim that there are many comparable alternatives to lead sinkers and jigs, this is not the case. Depending on the alternative metal and current prevailing raw material costs, non-lead fishing tackle products can cost from six to 20 times more than lead products. Non-lead products are not often available locally and most do not perform as well. Mandatory transitioning to non-lead fishing tackle would require significant — and costly — changes by anglers. The resultant decrease in fishing tackle purchases will reduce the dollars available for fisheries conservation provided through the federal manufacturers' excise tax on fishing equipment, as well as potentially reduce angling participation and income from fishing license sales.

On behalf of Minnesota’s recreational fishing community, we urge you to oppose SF 3892 and HF 3825. It will have a significant negative impact on the state’s recreational fishermen, recreational fishing-dependent businesses, and on the state's funding for fisheries conservation, while having an insignificant, if any, impact on the waterfowl populations it presumes to protect. Thank you very much for your consideration

Sincerely,

American Sportfishing Association Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) BoatU.S. Marine Retailers Association of the Americas MN Fish National Professional Anglers Association

Cc: Members, Environment and Natural Resources Policy and Legacy Finance Committee Members, Environment and Natural Resources Policy Committee