Read somewhere that this is almost a reality some places. There is supposedly alot of support for this. They want everyone to use foodsource/gulp or just not fish.

anybody else head about this bs?

i read about it about a month ago. i really dont know what to think because i have mixed feelings on the issue

Been fishing tournaments a long time but this is the first I have heard that. d**n, they take away my plastics I'm gonna be in serious trouble. ;D That will suck worse than spending the day with the wife and in laws (out laws). Guess I better check more on that.

Snag

Where are you guys hearing this?

If they take away my soft plastics im gonna quit fishing tournaments  because those are my main weapon

another site, field and stream or bassmaster, i would think only ones i have read,.... my internet is so d**n slow at home i havent had time to look anymore.

I know it is supposedly a problem for some fish in colder climates, but seems like it breaks down pretty good and quick in the south.

bet if we can look up who owns the technolgy, chemicals,etc. for the alternatives and that big company is helping fund this.  :

Who are "they?"

I am thinking the DNR of NY/state sentate being pressured by enviro group.... thats why i was asking here... I cant remember exactly who they is...

Just another reason to stock up ;D

I thought it might be California environmentalists who have never fished, much less been on a lake, who think they know best for everyone else.

Or guys that want to market  a tougher plastic bait.  Helluva way to get into the market.  "Our baits don't tear apart and pollute the water with dangerous chemicals like PVCs like Zooms, Yums and GYCBs do."

http://www.news.wisc.edu/14799

That just lowered my liking of hippies. (It was already pretty low.)

                  -searoach

If it's true, I wonder who is stirring it up or pushing it? Wouldn't be a supplier of soft baits that isn't soft plastic would it, Hmmmm?

I googled the heck out of this topic when I saw it and couldn't find ANYTHING on it except that blurb by that lure maker.   I think it's much ado about nothing.

Sounds like BS to me.  Not gonna worry about it.  

It will happen, junk science will be sure of that.  Look at the lead bans to see the future.

It happened here in Colorado. In some waters we have fly and lure only regulations. A bunch of loonies and biased biologists claimed fish were "always swallowing" soft plastic lures that had scent or salt added. They did this with no science to support it, and the only science I saw directly refuted it.

However in Colorado our Wildlife Commission is usually a rubber stamp for our liberal, tyrannical biologists. So it passed unanimously. Since most all soft plastics have scent or salt, this acted as a defacto ban on soft plastics on many waters. There was virtually no public support for the regulation.

However the local bass clubs would not allow this. This year, we got the bans repealed.

The key is to never give up.

Yesterday at one of my club tournaments, a guy snagged a jig and pig. He brought it to weigh in to show everyone. The trailer was a Zoom chunk that had expanded to abnormal proportions. It was atleast 5 inches long and about 2.5 inches wide.

It looked like a joke when I first seen it.

Here is my crappy pic of what it looked like.

If the original poster is right(which I highly doubt) this may be why.

Nice drwg, I couldn't do that good.

Read somewhere that this is almost a reality some places. There is supposedly alot of support for this. They want everyone to use foodsource/gulp or just not fish.

anybody else head about this bs?

i highly doubt there is a lot of support for this other than from tree huggers, food source is a nice alternative but im sure it cant match what other lures can do.

if somehow they do get it banned i wouldnt go out without a fight.

Soft plastics would never get banned from use for fishing. There is waaaay too much money in it for the companies that sell them. They would find a way to keep it from being banned.

I'm quite certain this is nothing more than rumor, and has nothing to do with "tree huggers", "hippies"  or any other stereotype group you want to conjur up.  It's most likely started by some company that makes soft baits without using plastic material - probably as some sort of stupid marketing ploy.  

I've seen garbage like this before and it always backfires ("banned in tournaments!" , "banned in 10 states", etc), so I have no idea why companies continue to indulge in these useless, false advertising practices.

I'm quite certain this is nothing more than rumor, and has nothing to do with "tree huggers", "hippies" or any other stereotype group you want to conjur up. It's most likely started by some company that makes soft baits without using plastic material - probably as some sort of stupid marketing ploy.

I've seen garbage like this before and it always backfires ("banned in tournaments!" , "banned in 10 states", etc), so I have no idea why companies continue to indulge in these useless, false advertising practices.

A defacto ban in my state (Colorado) was passed for Soft Plastics in some waters (waters that were artificials only), because they banned any lure that had scent or salt in it. They did this because they believed manufacturer claims about lures being "better than live bait" and they listened to the fly fishermen crowd, who want only flies to be allowed in most waters. They thought it was probably causing fish to swallow the hook, thus increasing hooking mortality. There was no science to support this. In fact, all the science I have ever seen refutes a ban on scented lures in ANY situation.

However because we would not tolerate this new law, and because of massive protest and the refusal to give up, we did get it repealed.

So believe me, it CAN happen and HAS happened.

The March issue of "Field and Stream" has an article on page 21 about this. If you are so positive that plastics as we know them won't be banned in the future, I suggest you read this article.

The key is zero tolerance for such regulations, zero tolerance for environmentalist and big government supporting groups, and zero tolerance for any politician who votes for or supports such a ban.

The key is zero tolerance for such regulations, zero tolerance for environmentalist and big government supporting groups, and zero tolerance for any politician who votes for or supports such a ban.

I'm sorry but IMHO any fisherman, hunter, or other outdoorsman should be very much of an environmentalist.  We should all be aware of what the impact is of what we do and the products we use on the environment.  It seems that in most cases going to extremes in either direction is not the best answer.  And to have zero tolerance for environemental considerations is not the way to go.  Neither is caving in to those who would ban something like this without reasonable science behind the ban.

DWS