104
ABSTRACT
A range of pressures and policy drivers exist to reduce human and wildlife exposures to the toxic effects of lead from
ammunition sources, awareness of which has increased in recent years. The replacement of lead ammunition with non-
toxic alternatives is widely recognised as a practical and effective solution to address the risks. As a consequence a range
of users of ammunition for natural resource management are making, or have made, this transition. This paper explores
a resistance to change frommany in the recreational shooting community.
Compliancewith the current regulations restricting use of lead shot in England in order to reduce the pollution of wetlands
andpoisoningofwildfowlhasbeenshowntobepoorandmorbidityandmortalityremainshighacrossBritain.Unfortunately
a high profile campaign run by the shooting organisations to reduce illegal use of lead shot has been ineffective.
A questionnaire survey of shooters’ behaviours and attitudes was undertaken to better understand the situation,
combined with a review of coverage of the subject area in the shooting media. Together with personal experiences of
the authors, these highlight a number of sociological and political barriers that combine to inhibit both compliance with
existing regulations and a transition to wider use of non-toxic ammunition.
These barriers to change are set within a wider context of a long held perception in the shooting and wider field sports
communities that ‘hunting is under threat’. The barriers are reinforced by the misperceptions that lead poisoning is not a
problem for either wildlife or human health; and that non-toxic alternatives are not fit for purpose and/or too costly. There
are cross-cutting issues of the regulations’ unenforceability, cultural traditions within the shooting communities, as well
as polarised loyalties between key stakeholder groups, andmistrust of those outside these communities. In combination,
this has led to issues of biased assimilation of information and solution aversion (meaning that the evidence is immaterial
if the solution to the problem remains undesirable). There has also been a popular narrative in the field sports media
dismissing the evidence and discrediting the messengers. These barriers to change appear to have been supported by
commercial interests and the political power of the field sports lobby including the ammunition manufacturers.
In other countries, recognition of lead’s toxic impacts and transition to the use of non-toxic ammunition have been
fully ‘owned’ by shooting communities working in combination with governments recognising joint responsibilities
and interests. Within the UK, the polarisation of stakeholder groups has inhibited such ownership, and prevented
constructive collaborative working and the agreement of a common solution. It is argued that the opportunity for the
conservation and shooting communities to work together on resolving problems was missed in the early stages of the
existing regulations. Now, the atmosphere of the debate is likely non-conducive to thosewithin the shooting community
who might like to speak out in favour of a more sustainable lead-free approach to shooting.
Arangeofecological,economicandpublicrelationsbenefitstomakingthetransitiontonon-toxicammunitionaredescribed.
Whilst there are some costs to the shooting community, these are arguably outweighed by the costs of not changing.
Key words: compliance, regulations, sociological aspects, political aspects, conflict, costs, barriers, lead ammunition
Author contributions: Wrote the paper: RC, JN. Performed the game dealer survey (including purchasing, radiography,
pathology and laboratory analyses, data analyses): JR, MO, KB, MB, JN, RC. Undertook the media survey: RC.
The sociological and political aspects of reducing
lead poisoning from ammunition in the UK: why the
transition to non-toxic ammunition is so difficult
Ruth Cromie1†, Julia Newth1,2, Jonathan Reeves1, Michelle O’Brien1, Katie Beckmann1 & Martin Brown 1
1 Wildfowl &Wetlands Trust (WWT), Slimbridge, Gloucestershire, GL2 7BT, UK
2 College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Cornwall Campus, TR10 9EZ, UK
† Corresponding author email address: