In episode 25 of the Outdoor Minimalist podcast, we are discussing lead-free fishing. I’ve done a few fishing-specific episodes, mostly fly fishing, and I was excited to host an epsiode that focuses on lead-free fishing.
Since I am the furthest thing from an angler, I was glad when John King of Glasswater angling reached out to help guide the conversation.
John King who with his wife Kathy founded Glasswater Angling Lead Free Fishing. John is a tackle designer currently focussing on providing alternatives to lead fishing lures and weights. John has a public persona known as “Crappie Hippie”, describing himself as “a tree hugging redneck from eastern Kansas”.
Crappie Hippie can be found with Tim “Tackle Box Bete” and Lucy The Lurematic Supercomputer on the Lure Love Podcast. Their YouTube channel is Glasswater Angling, Lure Love, Crappie Hippie where they post the pod and Crappie Hippie posts videos on lead free jig tying.
John is here today to help us understand more about the environmental impact of fishing and how we can strive toward “a better outdoors”™ John’s co-host Lucy will also join us with some supporting facts.
Glasswater Angling
Website: https://glasswaterangling.com/
Instagram: @glasswaterangling
Lead Free Fishing
Instagram: @crappiehippie @fishingleadfree
Lure Love Podcast: https://www.lurelovepodcast.com/
Episode Resources
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: https://www.pca.state.mn.us/living-green/manufacturers-and-retailers-lead-free-tackle
Fish Lead Free: https://fishleadfree.org/online-retailers/
TRCP Sportsman Survey: https://www.trcp.org/trcp-national-sportsmens-survey/
This transcript was edited to remove some filler words and phrases and is not verbatim according to what is spoken in the audio recording.
Meg: So, thanks for joining me today, John. I'm excited to discuss these topics, and I already know I’m going to learn a lot from you. But before we get started, can you talk a little bit about your background in the outdoor industry and what you most enjoy doing outside?
John: Thank you, Meg. My name is John King, the Crappie Hippie—that’s your tree-hugging redneck from Eastern Kansas. I’ve been an outdoorsman pretty much all my life. I started fishing when I was three years old, way back in 1965, so I guess that makes me about 59 now. I’ve always enjoyed the outdoors, always enjoyed fishing.
Now, in 2011, I came across a problem of lead contamination. I didn’t know this was an issue—that fishing was causing a lot of lead contamination in certain areas of our wilderness, wild places, and even in our not-so-wild places where people like to fish.
On a trip to Massachusetts, my wife Kathy always insists I take a fishing rod—I went to look at the regulations before buying my license, and I was shocked to find out that most of my ultralight jigs and tackle were not allowed because they had banned lead lures. So, I got more into this topic, and now that’s my passion. That’s my last battle, my final career: to change the way we fish and convert our fishing public from using a lot of lead to using almost none at all. We can get there.
Meg: That is so interesting. I had not heard of lead-free fishing before because I didn’t know that people used lead for things like fishing lures. It was really interesting to connect with you because it seems like a big environmental topic in the outdoor industry—something I should have known about but just never had before.
I guess something else I’m curious about is other ways that recreational fishing impacts those wild spaces. It’s a really broad topic, but if you could just touch on a few ways that individuals impact a space when they enter it to fish.
John: Sure, sure. I would start out by saying there’s a lot of impact that we all share. You know, walking the trail, making certain choices, building a little wig fire to make your coffee—all those kinds of things, right?
But in light of our discussion today, Meg, I want to stick to my "Hook, Line, and Sinker" paradigm. That’s the thing that makes us anglers different from other people who interact with the outdoors. There are things fishers can help and things they can’t help.
When we talk about "Hook, Line, and Sinker," we’re talking about:
The hook—what you put bait on or the hooks hanging off a lure.
The line—which is made of any number of materials, though nylon monofilament is still the overwhelming choice.
The sinkers and weights—which are still overwhelmingly made of lead.
Now, let’s start out with this: any angler can mess up and get their line caught in the treetops, have to break it off, and leave a hook and some line behind. If a robin gobbles up a worm on that hook, it’s going to hang there and die—and that’s a heart-wrencher. That’s a terrible thing to see.
But, you know, my heart also goes out to the squirrel smashed on the road that I saw on my way to the fishing hole. So, we’re all interacting with the environment and leaving a footprint. Sometimes it’s obvious; sometimes it’s gradual and not readily discernible.
Here’s the thing, though: you can accidentally lose your line in a tree and hook a songbird—that’s rough. You can also squish a squirrel with your car—that’s rough too. But you’re going to have better luck improving your fishing skills and learning how to avoid getting your line caught in trees than you’ll ever have learning to drive your car well enough to avoid a squirrel rushing headlong at your tires.
That’s encouraging because while we will mess up and leave some stuff behind—since that’s the downside of the activity and it can’t be helped—what fishers can do is practice. Practice casting in the backyard, at the water, and so on. Improve your casting skills. Learn what lures or bait rigs are better options for getting in and out of snaggy areas where you’re fishing. Fish like to live in snaggy areas, but if you use the right setups and learn the right techniques, you’ll lose far less gear.
It’s all about playing around outside, experimenting, and keeping an open mind. There are so many things anglers can do to minimize their impact.
To summarize, there are many ways anglers can affect the environment. For example, you might choose a soft plastic jig tail over a natural one, but lost plastics in the environment are a whole other topic we don’t have time for today. Maybe I’ll come back, and we can talk about that one.
But, you know, just walking the shoreline, a little leak in your boat’s fuel line, or similar actions can have an impact. By and large, though, the most obvious and immediate impact for anglers is "Hook, Line, and Sinker." Therefore, our most obvious responsibility is to keep as much of this stuff out of the ecosystem as possible.
Meg: So, would you say that the loss of materials—like you’re describing, in trees or in the water—is the biggest impact? Or is lead pollution a bigger issue than that?
John: Yeah, it's a tough call, Meg. I mean, you know, good marketing would want me to just say lead right off, but monofilament and other types of fishing line are a huge problem too. Now, hooks don't cause as much contamination, but they do come into conflict with wildlife, as we just illustrated. And if you've ever stepped on a hook while you're just trying to enjoy the beach or swim, you know what a problem they can be.
However, compared to lead or fishing line, hooks degrade fairly quickly. They're generally made of treated steel wire that oxidizes and crumbles away in a matter of weeks, months, or even days if they're cheap and in the right underwater environment.
Now, on the other hand, monofilament, braid, fluorocarbon, and other lines are made to be extremely resistant to degradation in water. Even when they do break down, they don’t disappear—they just break into tiny pieces and become part of the microplastic problem. They’ll all eventually degrade, but it can take years or even decades depending on what the line is made from. For example, fly line takes forever to break down.
If line is left tangled on the shore, in the water, or—worst case scenario—in whole long strands strung through tree branches, it can tangle and kill birds every year. The thing is, most anglers do a pretty good job of recovering and carrying home their line—probably 80 to 90 percent of the time they get it all back.
The problem comes from the arrogant, the ignorant, the lazy, or the angry—the people who leave this mess behind. We’ve got to address this issue within the angling community. That’s a social issue, an education issue, and something anglers need to put pressure on each other to fix.
But in the end, I have to pick lead as the bigger problem. Lead is the hazard that keeps on giving neurotoxins to the planet for decades and decades after it gets lost. It’s an accumulating problem.
I brought my friend Lucy with me today. Lucy, can you give us some facts and figures on lost lead from fishing in aquatic environments? Lucy is our Lurematic supercomputer from The Lure Love Podcast, and she’s incredibly smart and great at research. Lucy, can you fill us in, please?
Lucy: Hello, listeners of The Outdoor Minimalist Podcast! My name is Lucy, the Lurematic supercomputer, and I co-host The Lure Love Podcast with John “Crappy Hippie” King and Tim “Tackle Box” Beat. We are sponsored by Glasswater Angling, Lead-Free Fishing.
I have some statistics generated by my co-hosts regarding how much lead is going into our environment from fishing. By conservative estimate, Crappy Hippie calculates that if the average angler loses 1.5 ounces of lead during a fishing season, more than 2,500 tons of lead are going into our rivers, lakes, and shorelines every year.
That’s based on the loss of six quarter-ounce sinkers or one dozen eighth-ounce crappie jigs per angler. Clearly, some anglers lose more lead than others, and weight increments lost will vary too. For example, Tim once dropped an entire tackle box into a lake—poor guy!
The smaller the lead item, the greater the danger that wildlife will eat and ingest the item. Fractionalizing the total weight into actual individual sinkers, one can estimate between 500 million and 1 billion lead objects are left in the path of wildlife, shoreline, and aquatic birds each year.
Crappy Hippie has really done his research on lead. Tim has shared a statistic that 4,000 to 5,000 tons of lead weights are sold in the United States each year. Granted, a certain percentage of these sales are to new anglers or those taking up a new style of fishing and requiring lead items for the first time, but at least half of that amount is likely going to anglers replacing lead they’ve lost while fishing.
Therefore, Tim and John’s individual conclusions come out remarkably close. Neither of them is as smart as me, but they’re pretty good at this stuff.
Lead weights were first mass-produced in the mid-1940s. That amounts to approximately 120,000 tons of lead lost in aquatic ecosystems to date. Glasswater Angling was founded to reduce and eventually eliminate the use of lead in the sport of fishing.
Thank you, Meg, for allowing me to join the conversation with you and Crappy Hippie.
Meg: Well, thank you, Lucy, for those facts! Back to you, John. I kind of want you to explain in more basic terms, probably for people like me who aren’t super into fishing, or maybe for people just getting into fishing and not familiar with lead-free fishing lures.
What is lead-free fishing? We’ve touched on why it’s important, but if you want to throw in a few more points, feel free.
John: You betcha, you betcha! Okay, now I’m going to use the kind of language that’s used on this podcast a lot—very instructional, very straightforward. Here we go.
Lead-free fishing is taking lead lures or weights out of your set of choices for fishing by substituting lead-free alternatives of equal or greater effectiveness. All right, did that sound like it came straight out of a book or something?
Meg: Right, right. Yeah, that was a good definition—very succinct and concise.
John: All right, from a professional writer, people—I'm all over it.
So, the two main culprits are small lead lures, and the main category of these lures is what's called wire baits. Then, of course, we have lead weights. We’ve got two problems here. First, there are lures and weights small enough that they’re getting ingested by wildlife—accidentally scooped up when birds go for grit or something similar. Birds might even mistake a lost jig for food. And why wouldn’t they? A fish thinks it’s food, so why wouldn’t a bird think it’s food too?
The second problem is the bigger baits and sinkers. Even if they’re too big to be eaten, they still leach lead into the water. The pro-lead people—and yes, they are out there—argue that lead is stable and doesn’t cause much harm. But we all know that lead can leach, and having it in the water or soil is not a good idea.
The real issue here is accumulation. Lead builds up in natural places. We’re not fishing everywhere; we’re fishing in lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, and public parks. These are the places where lead is getting concentrated, so it’s critical that we address this problem.
The good news is that lead-free fishing works. Just look at the loon recovery in the Northeast, where five states have banned the use of lead lures and weights under a certain size. It’s been very effective. Oh, and by the way, one of the Pacific Northwest states—your state, maybe—Washington, also limits lead in certain environments for the same reasons: wildlife loss and environmental harm.
The reason states in the Northeast enacted laws instead of relying on education programs was because they found a direct and urgent link between lead-free fishing tackle and the survival of loons. For example, 42% of known loon deaths in New Hampshire since 1988 were caused by ingesting lead tackle.
Massachusetts is another case study. When they enacted their law in 1998, their Department of Natural Resources could only find two breeding pairs of loons in the entire state. Within ten years of the law’s passage, there were over 100 pairs. These laws have also been credited with rising loon populations in surrounding states because, as populations recover, the young birds spread out to wherever the habitat is. State boundaries don’t matter to them.
So, it’s important—not just because we’re making laws—but because it’s effective, and we know it works.
Estimates on wildlife loss due to lead from hunting and fishing range from 3 to 12 million birds, depending on the source. Most of this loss comes from ingestion. In addition, there are an estimated 1 to 5 million animals higher up the food chain—predators and scavengers—affected by consuming lead-poisoned prey.
For example, bald eagles often get poisoned from eating fish or ducks that have swallowed lead lures or accidentally scooped up lead weights while feeding or retaining grit. Then there are coyotes, skunks, raccoons, and other animals that encounter lead-contaminated prey.
Keep in mind, Meg, that it only takes a fragment of lead the size of a grain of table salt to affect a human body. If you double that amount—two grains—it could lead to permanent damage or symptoms. Now imagine how much less it takes to kill an animal that’s much smaller than a human, especially if they’ve consumed something like a quarter-ounce of lead.
Meg: Is the biggest issue with lead lures when an animal actually consumes it, or is it more about the lead leaching into the water, like you mentioned earlier?
John: The leaching is a long-term problem. Like I mentioned earlier, some problems are obvious, and some are gradual and invisible. That’s what we’re dealing with here.
We see the wildlife impacted by ingestion—loons, bald eagles, coyotes, and so on—because those effects are immediate and visible. People who track loons, especially in the Northeast, and groups across Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan—anywhere there are loons—are finding these direct links between ingestion and lead poisoning.
But the leaching issue is more gradual and long-term. So no, the loons, eagles, and other animals I mentioned earlier are primarily affected by direct ingestion. Once the lead enters their system, it grinds into smaller pieces and poisons them.
However, the leaching problem isn’t something to ignore either. It doesn’t make sense to add lead to our water if we don’t have to. This issue isn’t just about loons, birds, or coyotes—it’s about you and me too.
When I used to do public speaking engagements, one of my favorite jokes was to ask, “How many of you like to fish?” Hands would go up. Then I’d ask, “How many of you like to drink water?” More hands would go up. And then I’d say, “Oh, and for those of you who didn’t raise your hand for either—well, that’s pretty weird!”
The point is, even if you don’t fish, if you drink water, you should care about what’s in it. Certain fishing techniques leave big chunks of lead in the water, and they’re going to stay there for a long time.
So, to answer your question: no, it’s not the leaching that’s directly affecting the loons and other animals—it’s mostly ingestion. But the leaching is harmful to humans and ecosystems in the long term.
Meg: From what I’m understanding, one argument I’ve heard in the context of water pollution is “the solution to pollution is dilution.” I’m guessing the pro-lead folks might say, “Well, the bodies of water are big enough, and we’re not adding enough lead to really be detrimental in terms of leaching.” What would you say to that argument?
John: To me, “solution by dilution” may have its place, but honestly, it sounds like a cop-out. It’s kind of like—Yeah, I’m not comfortable with the fact that everybody in this pool is taking a leak, but I guess I’ve got to live with it, you know, and deal with “solution by dilution.” But you get enough little kids in that pool, and I’m getting out because there’s just not enough space to dilute all this stuff. I’m just kind of kidding around there, but you know, this is where we’re at.
I had a guy give me that line, like, “Oh, it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter.” And I’m like, “What’s significant? A loss of a few birds? That’s not significant? A level of lead in the water? That’s not significant?” Well, I think it’s significant. I don’t know who gets to decide this kind of stuff.
You know, we’ve got the EPA and the CDC telling us there’s no such thing as a safe level of lead in a child’s blood. So how can we turn around and tell some company, “Oh yeah, you can contaminate up to a certain risk level. You can contaminate up to a certain tolerance level.”
Lead is such a powerful neurotoxin. The lead concentrates that we used to make to take the knock out of gas-running engines were so powerful that if a single drop got on your skin, you had a 90% chance of death. And if you lived, you were probably completely insane.
This is bad stuff. I can’t speak to other forms of pollution, but lead is something that we’ve already taken out of paint, we’ve gotten it out of plumbing, we’ve gotten it out of gasoline, and we’re going to take it out of car batteries before long. We’ve already addressed the shoreline consequences of shot-shell hunting, and we’ve turned that around. We’re going to turn this lead-free fishing thing around too.
And I’m not going to accept any argument that says, “Oh, it’s such a small problem, we’re just going to let the environment absorb it.” That’s not going to work for me.
Meg: Good. I’m glad. I’m glad that there’s someone like you who’s fighting for those types of changes.
I’m also curious—you talked about… actually, I don’t know if you talked about any specific types of fishing, but are there certain types of fishing that are more likely to use lead lures?
John: Yeah, there are. And I made out a little list here. We’re going to start with the least offensive and work our way to the most offensive.
You’ve had a couple of fly fishers on, and we’ve got to commend the fly fishers. I fly fish. I do what’s called “best method fishing,” so I’m not a really good fly fisher—I just do it because sometimes it’s the best method for what I’m going for. But fly fishers who make a big career out of it are the most responsive when it comes to calls for cleaner ecosystems. They’re the ones most in favor of lead-free fishing.
Granted, fishing lead-free requires the least amount of sacrifice on the part of fly fishers because they don’t use much lead. They might use some lead wire to weigh down certain fly patterns or a little edge shot to drop a wet fly or nymph down low in a stream to get to the bottom of a pool. But by and large, they don’t need to use much lead.
To their credit, most fly fishers have switched to lead-free alternatives like tungsten putty, which they can squeeze onto their line to make a little ball or weight. They’ve also switched to tin-bismuth wire for their fly patterns, and they’re fine with it. Tin split shot is perfectly acceptable for giving them the weight they need.
Also, there are so many geniuses in fly fishing who’ve come up with sink tips and other ways to make interchangeable sink tips. These innovations allow the line itself to carry the fly down into the stream, rather than relying on a piece of metal to do it.
Okay, so next come pole fishers. Pole fishing setups are super simple. It’s fun—just a bamboo pole or a telescoping pole, a lure, a hook, and a short line. You’re real close to your work, and you tend to recover most of your snagged tackle. It’s the most minimalist type of fishing you can do using a rod. Of course, dispensing with the rod entirely would be even more minimal, and if we ever want to talk about minimalist fishing, I’d be happy to come back and discuss that.
But sticking to our topic:
Right here in the middle is power fishing for game species, like largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, pike, musky, walleye—things like that. Truth be told, while lead is used in this method, bass fishers especially are into alternatives to lead. Not so much for environmental reasons, but because many find lead unsatisfactory compared to other metals for what they’re trying to do.
For example, tungsten, while expensive, has twice the specific gravity of lead. That means you can use a smaller weight—one about half the size of a lead weight. This can give you a big advantage when you’re fishing through certain types of weeds or aquatic grass.
Also, bass fishers find that lead is soft and can distort very easily. Many of them prefer brass or steel weights, which are harder materials and won’t distort. With lead, the hole where the line goes through can close up and scratch the line, potentially costing you a big fish.
Another great thing about harder metals like tungsten, brass, or steel is that they click and clack against rocks and logs. Bass fishers even string beads on their lines so that the sinker moves up and down and makes a little clicking noise. These noises attract fish.
Now, like I said, these game fishers hardly ever mention the environmental benefits of these materials. But they are starting to acknowledge it, and that’s great. Honestly, I’m just glad they’re using them. Anyone using a lead-free alternative and showing that it works is helping me convince other anglers that they have nothing to lose by fishing lead-free.
Meg: I’m not sure if this is going to derail your list of types of fishing or not, but I’m curious: is there a specific benefit to using a lead lure, performance-wise? Why is that—or why was that—the standard back in the day, and still kind of now?
John: Because lead is cheap. It’s available. It’s craftable. It has no magical properties that make it extra special for building lures. It’s just become the standard because it was good business to use it. And that was it.
We can use other materials. People who are really into lead might say, “It can’t be replaced,” and they’ll dig into the science: “Bismuth is only about a 10 in specific gravity, lead is an 11, tin is only 7.5, hematite’s only 8.” And I’m like, “We can compensate for this.”
The flip side is that when you limit yourself to lead, you’re missing out on alternative materials that might actually be better. That’s what bass fishers and other fishing methods are showing us. Alternative materials are not only equal to lead, but a lot of the time, they’re better.
We’re just kind of stuck in an old habit. It’s like the measurement system. My buddies and I were talking about this the other day—how, when we were kids, jigs came in 1/32-ounce, 1/16-ounce, and 1/8-ounce increments. It was always just doubling. Now, because of the metric system, alternative materials, and people trying different things, we measure in tenths, in grams.
We don’t worry so much about the weight-to-length ratio of baits anymore. So, we can replace lead.
I’ll buzz through these last three—well, the next two—real quick, and then we’ll get to the big baddie at the end.
Yeah, you’ve got catfishing, surf fishing—another big rod, big bait, big weight type of fishing. Now, these guys and gals are going for fish that weigh 40, 50, even 100 pounds. They’re using a big old bait and big old weight to get it out there. They’re fishing in heavy currents, in the tides of the ocean, and so forth. They need a weight that’s going to keep the bait where they want it.
These weights are too big to be ingested, but if they get busted off, you’re talking about an 8-ounce weight—that’s a half-pound of lead. It’s going to sit there. And the idea that it’s somehow going to get covered by the substrate and magically become safe is fallacious. It may not directly leach a whole bunch of junk into the water—maybe just an infinitesimally small amount that one time on that one shoreline.
But when you consider the fact that people have been fishing this way since the 1940s, this stuff is starting to accumulate out there—just like junk accumulating in space. We think there’s so much room for waste, but we’re taking a risk. Now, these guys don’t offend very much because their rigs are expensive, and they do their best to get them back. But when they do lose a weight, it’s a big one.
Deep-water trolling is another problem. These guys can use big, long lengths of lead-core line, which sometimes get lost. Now you’ve got this big, long lead line that sinks to the bottom and just sits there.
Meg: Is that in the ocean?
John: Deep-water trolling can be done in the ocean, but it’s also real popular in places like the Great Lakes. Out your way, people use deep-water trolling for salmon. Up in the Northeast, they use it for lake trout and salmon.
So, you’ve got this big, long lead line that runs out 60, 100 yards behind the boat—or more. If it breaks off, now you’ve got this long line of lead sinking to the bottom. It’s coated, sure, but that coating isn’t going to last forever.
And honestly, it’s just not a good idea to pollute. Sometimes this can’t be helped, but the fact that it’s lead just makes it worse.
There’s also a method called downrigging. You clip your regular fishing line to a big 5-pound lead weight and drop it down on a cable. When a fish hits, the clip releases the line so you can fight the fish on your rod. But sometimes, those big lead weights get lost. Now you’ve got another big chunk of lead sitting down there.
Fortunately, some companies are starting to make them out of zinc or iron. That’s good because they recognize that losing a downrigger weight is not great. Zinc is a good, cheap metal that’s widely available, and a lot of people are starting to switch to that.
Now, drumroll please… The worst type of fishing when it comes to lead contamination is the type of fishing I do: ultralight and finesse fishing.
Meg: The worst one is the one you love the most?
John: Exactly. That’s why I’ve got this old sinner’s motivation to get in the game and try to change things. I love my sport. I love what I do. I love the people who do it—for the most part—and I want to make a change here.
When you fish with ultralight rods or finesse rods, we’re talking about lightweight line, small lures, and small weights. This is the category of fishing where those wire baits I mentioned—like jigs and spinners—are the mainstay. The lures are inexpensive compared to other types of fishing because they’re small.
And they get lost at a much higher rate because of the light line, the fact that you carry more of them in your tackle box, and you don’t feel the financial pain as much when you lose one. I hate to admit this, but I’ve probably lost over 5,000 crappie jigs in my career as a fisherman—not to mention overhead spinners, underspins, and some lead spoons too.
The problem is, our baits are small, so they can be easily eaten. The sinkers are small too, so they can be accidentally ingested when a bird scoops up grit or feeds on bottom-dwelling organisms.
We ultralight fishers like to hike and travel. Our equipment is small, so we can get out into wild places, wade in rivers, and do a lot of the things fly fishers can do.
And last but not least, most beginners—whether they’re kids or adults—start with light tackle. They just want to go out and catch something, so we set them up for panfishing with sunfish, perch, or little trout. That means you’ve got a lot of learners using light line and equipment, and their skill level isn’t as high as an experienced power fisher or fly fisher. So, the rate of lure and sinker loss is going to be higher for these beginners.
Like I said earlier, finesse fishing often happens in brush, weeds, and rocks—places where fish like to live—so snags are common. Unfortunately, when you’re using light line, it breaks more easily. Now you’ve got a tasty-looking lure stuck in a log or sitting in the rocks for a loon or grebe to eat by accident.
But if you’ve made the decision to tie your jig with a glass, water, or bismuth jig head, the consequence of that bird eating it is minimized. That’s why I started with finesse fishing for my products. We’re just a small company, and we want to do everything one day. But we had to start somewhere, and I decided to focus on my own fishing style.
Meg: I feel like smaller companies pushing for environmental change often start by addressing something they personally care about. You’re enjoying the activity, and then you realize there’s an issue you can solve. That leads me to my next question, which is related to Glasswater Angling: how can we start to see more of an industry shift?
As individuals, we have some sway, but if we’re only offered certain options in the market, we can only choose those options. If lead lures are far more accessible, my guess is that most people will gravitate toward them simply because they’re unaware of alternatives. So, where in the industry have you started to see a shift? And where does Glasswater Angling fit in?
John: Yeah, I’m on the fence about that. Legislation has its place. It certainly was what they needed to do in the Northeast because they saw a direct link—an animal was being pushed desperately close to extinction, and they had to act. They had to put some teeth into legislation and make people stop. And that’s okay with me in those situations.
But, like in Minnesota, they’ve gone the education route with huge lead-free fishing programs. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is a great resource for finding out about lead-free companies. They’re focused on educating anglers and promoting change through awareness.
Now, some people roll their eyes and say, “It’s not fast enough,” or “It doesn’t work.” But I maintain that any kind of pressure, any kind of informational service, any time we can introduce someone—like a nice young person like you, Meg—to the idea that lead is a problem but one we can fix with a new attitude, we’re taking steps toward a solution.
I’ll tell you this: it’s not just Minnesota. Michigan and Canada have barbless hook requirements and are starting to enact lead-free laws on certain waters. And as far as my company goes, this is going to both shock and please you—I get just as many orders for lead-free tackle from the Deep South as I do from the Northeast or the Northwest.
Meg: Really?
John: Yep, and that’s great news because it’s not required in those areas. People are leaning toward it even without mandates. In fact, I get more business from areas where it’s not required than from areas where it is.
There are about 9 or 10 million fishers in these so-called “required areas,” but honestly, fishers—like every group—have a mix of people. Every community has a few bad apples. Even nice young lady backpackers have a small number of a-holes in their group; it’s just the way it is. But the majority of fishers are outstanding people who want to be sporting and conservation-minded. And I’m not just saying that to butter you up—I really do see it.
I’ve also noticed that female anglers tend to be particularly conservation-focused. They’re very anti-pollution and concerned about doing things the right way. So, we’re really only dealing with a very small minority of people who spoil it for the rest of us. The good news is that many fishers don’t need to be pushed around by laws—they’re wanting to make these changes voluntarily. I don’t care much for pushing people around with laws unless we’ve given them a chance to do the right thing first.
Meg: That’s a great point. And there are quite a few anglers who listen to this podcast. Do you have any resources that would be valuable for them to learn more about lead-free fishing? You mentioned the program in Minnesota and your company. I’m sure you have resources on your website, but are there other places people can look for information?
John: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Number one, educate yourself on the issue—this applies to non-fishers, too. There are tons of loon watch and conservation groups with websites full of data about the effects of lead on wildlife. The loon is kind of the poster child for this whole movement, but lead-free fishing concerns other birds too.
For example, swans in Michigan and Minnesota. Even here in Kansas, the other day, I saw some swans flying across the road. I want them protected. And of course, there’s the bald eagle—our national symbol. Everyone’s concerned about them.
These species are driving forces behind efforts to correct this problem. Conservation websites often have studies and articles that explain how birds and other wildlife run afoul of lead. It doesn’t take a major research project to understand the issue; just look at a few studies, grasp the gist of the problem, and you’ll see why this change is necessary.
For anglers who want to start or learn more, I’d say to support companies that sell lead-free tackle. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency has the best list, in my opinion. I also recommend FishLeadFree.org—they have a wonderful list as well. Both sites include live links to companies that can help you get started. Of course, we’re listed on both, but what I like about these lists is that they make it easy for people to explore their options.
If you’re already doing some lead-free fishing, I’d encourage you to join a community. For instance, we have a Facebook group called Lead-Free Fishing. You can share photos of your catches and show how your lead-free choices are working for you. You don’t have to be 100% lead-free to join or enjoy it. I’m not trying to start a religion here—I just want people to try.
Meg: That’s a great approach.
John: Exactly. When I first listened to your podcast, you said something about how we can’t expect people to be perfect, but we can encourage them to strive toward their own version of what “perfect” looks like. That stuck with me. Let’s not get toxic by calling people names or being exclusionary because they can’t afford or find all the lead-free tackle they want to make a complete conversion. If you’re trying—if you’re making an effort—you’re doing the right thing.
Meg: Yeah, I love that message. And I'm sure even if you just go in and Google "lead-free fishing," a lot of those resources will pop up. But the ones that you mentioned, I'll include in the show notes so they're easy to access. And how can people learn more about Glasswater Angling and your podcast?
John: Well, you can go to glasswaterangling.com. That’s my company website, and we have all kinds of cool stuff there. You can also listen to The Lure Love Podcast, which is a podcast I do with Tim Tackle Box Beat. We are big lead-free advocates, although we spend a lot of our time doing silly dad humor, deep dives on lures, and just geeking out about them.
That’s one place to start. You can also find me from time to time on The Lure Love Podcast, though that podcast comes out irregularly.
You can find me on Instagram at @crappyhippie, @leadfreefishing, @lurelovepodcast, and @glasswaterangling. I’ll be honest—I’ve gotten so busy that I don’t keep up with my feeds like I’d like to. But when I first started out, I made a bunch of feeds because it was the only thing I knew to do in marketing that didn’t cost a lot of money.
Meg: Yeah, it is a lot to keep up with social media. But I'll share your handles and links so people can check out those different pages. With that, did you have any last bits of advice or anything else you wanted to share?
John: Sure. I just want to say that non-anglers can be involved in this too. Go ahead and learn about these companies and a little bit about lead-free fishing. You never know—you might end up with a crazy angler in your life that you want to buy a gift for, and now you’ll know what to get them. Or you might have a kid or grandkid who wants to get started fishing, and you’ll know what you want to start them with. Please, go lead-free.
Other than that, my last bit of advice would be this: if you’re having trouble finding lures that are lead-free, then make them. I’ve been really proud to get to know a whole bunch of jig tyers as I’ve progressed with this company. Jig heads are our number one selling product, and I couldn’t be more delighted that anglers aren’t waiting for the market to catch up to them. They’re doing an end run around the situation, building their own lures, and taking their own lead-free message—built with their own hands—out into the field.
Don’t be afraid to look into doing your own thing. It’s easy, it’s fun, and I’ll warn you—it’s addictive. But you can get into some lead-free fishing, and while you’re building that lure, you’re doing a good thing. If you lose that lure, yes, it’s making an impact, but not with a deadly toxin like lead.
I just wish for everybody to get out there. You probably already have a ton of lead-free lures in your tackle box. You probably already have Daredevle spoons, Mepps spinners, or a Rebel Slim Minnow—things that have always been made lead-free. We know you can catch fish on lead-free lures. Change the rest of your gear over as you can. Metals sink—lead isn’t the only one. Change those things over when you’re able, but don’t beat yourself up where you can’t make a change. Just keep working toward it.
And say a little prayer for me when you’re out there because I’m working toward it with you. We’re going to meet in the middle, and we’re going to get this problem solved.
Meg: Awesome. Well, thank you so much, John. I feel like I learned a lot, and I hope that everyone else did too. So, thanks again.
John: Absolutely. Absolutely. Thank you, Meg.
Related Episodes
10. Prioritizing Experience and Place Over Equipment and Possessions with Daniel Ritz
18. Finding Minimalism and Connection Through Fly Fishing with Joe Mahler
92. Making Hunting and Fishing More Accessible with Erin Crider
130. Harvesting Nature: Culinary Conservation and Ethical Hunting with Justin Townsend
139. Creating a More Eco-Conscious Fly Fishing Setup with Kaelyn Canner
155. Why Anglers Should Be Concerned About Climate Change with Rick Crawford
Kommentare