107
International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation -
CIC) on the risks from lead ammunition to wildlife (BirdLife
International/FACE 2004) as well as people (CIC 2009, Kanstrup
20108) resistance to change remains firm amongst many in
the UK shooting community. Why then is this transition so
protracted (given that this was first recommended by the Royal
Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1983 (RCEP 1983))?
The publication of the Newth et al. paper in the autumn of 2012,
indicating a continuing problem of lead poisoning in waterbirds
in Britain, gained somemedia coverage.This created heightened
tension in the debate and was met with a strong negative
reaction in the UK shooting media and shooting organisations.
Since then, retaining the current status quo has been strongly
argued for by the two main UK shooting organisations (BASC
and Countryside Alliance) as illustrated by a campaign message
of the latter organisation ‘give your voice to keep lead’ and the
publication ‘The Case for Lead’ (Countryside Alliance 2013).
As part of this, in appreciating that non-compliance with
the current law related to the use of lead shot was a problem
(Cromie et al. 2002, 2010) and could put at risk the use of all lead
ammunition in other habitats, the shooting and country land
management organisations came together in the summer of
2013 to launch a campaign to encourage individuals to comply
with the law on the use of lead shot. This ‘Use Lead Legally’
campaign was subject to a high profile launch at the Country,
Land and Business Association (CLA) Game Fair in July 2013 and
was kept high profile in the shootingmedia and on the websites
of the two main shooting organisations for several months. It
was successful in terms of generating interest and signatories to
pledge to not break the law.
The legislative status quo, but including significantly improved
compliance with the law, would bring some gains for some
waterbirds but would not address risks to waterbirds feeding
in terrestrial environments, gamebirds, raptors and scavengers
and wider environmental contamination (Pain et al. 2015), nor
protect human health for frequent game consumers. In the
absence of political legislative action, wider change to use of
non-toxic ammunition would need to involve a willingness to
change; the practicalities of change being resolved e.g. gun
proofing for steel shot for those wanting a comparably priced
shot and not wanting to buy the more expensive alternatives;
and practice and shooting within acceptable ranges. The latter
is an important aspect of the lead ammunition debate - ranges
acceptable for lead are analogous for ranges acceptable for
steel but it is likely that judgement of shooting distance for
some shooters may need honing (various shooters, pers. comm.).
A ‘sporting shot’9 at a bird such as a pheasant flying high is
arguably out of range and would be made more difficult, and
potentially additionally unethical10 to shoot at, if using steel
shot. More dense non-toxic shot such as tungstenwould behave
in a similar way to lead.
Despite many shared conservation objectives and collaborative
projects, the relationship between the field sports11 and
conservation communities can be problematic. Thus, the lead
debate sits within this more general environment of mistrust
and tensionwhich has increased in recent years due to concerns
over the sustainability of some other shooting practices (e.g.
Brown et al. 2014, ECRA 2014, Avery 2015) and a perception
that conservation organisations are anti-hunting (e.g. see results
of shooting media survey below). There is also a legitimate
perception among hunters in general that legislation is one-way
and only leads to further restriction on their sports12.
Appreciating this landscape, this paper provides a narrative
of what will be termed ‘the lead ammunition debate’ (or ‘the
debate’), reflects on the recent chronology of events and looks
at responses of the shooting community to these and the likely
impacts of these responses.
The paper aims to explore some of the sociological and political
barriers to change in order to help inform those involved in
‘the debate’ as well as interested wider society. The objectives
include:
1. reviewing compliancewith the law in Englandover time and
specifically measuring compliance following the campaign
by the shooting organisations to reduce illegal use of lead
(the‘Use Lead Legally’campaign launched in 2013);
2. exploring the understanding and attitudes of shooters
using a formal questionnaire survey; and
3. gaining an appreciation of the narrative to which the
shooting community is exposed by undertaking a content
analysis of the shooting media.
The paper contains both data and opinions of the authors
based upon dealing with the issue for many years. It reflects
on some of the other sociological and political aspects too
9 The bird has a good chance of either being missed altogether or being hit by a small number of pellets at lower velocity but surviving. 10 Ethics are personal but The
Code of Good Shooting Practice says ‘Guns must be competent at estimating range and shoot within the limitations of their equipment to kill cleanly and consistently.’
11The total hunting/field sports community i.e. broader than just shooting, 12 As an example, the 1954 Protection
of Wild Birds Act had a quarry list of 33 species whilst the equivalent list of the 1981 Wildlife & Countryside Act had just 19 species.
Sociological and political barriers to transition to non-toxic ammuntion: UK experience