109
these articles as people with an interest in shooting are likely
to read more than one shooting magazine, yet not necessarily
read the entire publication nor consistently over time.
Events e.g. the holding of meetings or mere mentions of
statements of fact relating to lead poisoning (other than its toxic
effects) were not noted. Similarly, tone was not recorded due
to its subjectivity. However, wherever an opinion of relevance
to the toxicity of lead, lead ammunition or the debate more
generally was provided this was noted. Of the 94 articles, 72
expressed one or more opinion (48 normal articles, 19 letters,
two responses to letters and three editorials). These were noted
and then grouped as appropriate into common themes, the
results of which are presented herein.
It is accepted from the outset that other than the shooting
media there is vast array of influences that ultimately give rise
to particular belief systems and subsequent behaviours. These
include heritage, social grouping, interactions on social media
and so on and these deserve further investigation but are not
explored within this paper.
4. Stakeholder classification
To help understand, and attempt to simplify, the lead
ammunition debate (accepting the problems this may cause)
stakeholders were grouped into categories. Stakeholders
were identified according to the following criteria: those who
are influenced by the debate, those who may influence the
debate and those who have an interest in/knowledge about
the debate. Stakeholders were identified, differentiated and
categorised using the authors’ knowledge and external expert
opinion and through assessing information from a range of
sources including electronic media, publications, conference
proceedings and peer reviewed literature and reports (Reed
et al. 2009).
Key segments identified included the conservation community,
the shooting organisations and the shooting community. The
latter includes what we are terming the ‘shooter in the field’ to
try and illustrate an ‘average’ individual shooter (of whatever
type of shooting), likely not involved in organisational politics,
but aware of the lead ammunition debate from the shooting
media, social media and shooting friends and/or family. It is fully
appreciated that such categorisation can be unhelpful when
analysing a debate already subject to polarisation. Furthermore,
none of these segments are homogenous (for example, the
British shooting community includes a broad range of shooting
types undertaken by a wide cross section of society (Cromie et
al. 2010)).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Is the current law being broken
in England?
A previous game dealer survey undertaken across England in
the winter of 2001/02 (i.e. two years after introduction of the
English Regulations) found a low level of compliance with 68%
of 40 ducks having been shot illegally with lead (Cromie et al.
2002). The larger scale study funded by Defra, undertaken over
two winters (2008/09 and 2009/10) found compliance had not
improved with 70% of both 253 and 239 ducks from respective
winters having been shot illegally with lead (Cromie et al. 2010).
Of particular significance for this paper is that public knowledge
of the survey in the second winter did not affect compliance.
From the shooter questionnaire survey (Cromie et al. 2010),
some 45% of 558 respondents who were legally obliged to use
lead said they did not always obey this law. Although the first
author has been frequently told, and knows, of wildfowling clubs
that require use of non-toxic shot, the author can also recount
numerous conversations with shooters who said that they, or
other shooters, do not comply with the law. It is acknowledged
that the extent of this practice is unknown and it is possible that
these situations are more likely to occur during terrestrial bird
shooting when waterbird shooting is more opportunistic.
DID THE USE LEAD LEGALLY CAMPAIGN INCREASE
LEVELS OF COMPLIANCE?
The winter 2013/14 game dealer survey conducted when the
Use Lead Legally campaign had been running for some four
to seven months, found 77% of 84 ducks to have been shot
illegally with lead (see Table 1). This level of non-compliance
was worse than in the previous surveys. The ratio of mallard
Anas platyrhynchos to other duck species was not directly
comparable to the Defra-funded study but had it been (i.e. by
adjusting the proportion of mallard to make it comparable),
the level of compliance for this study would have been
significantly worse than the Cromie et al. (2010) study (Chi-
squared test p=0.023) (75/92)(see Figure 1).
Sociological and political barriers to transition to non-toxic ammuntion: UK experience