110
14It is actually illegal to sell gadwall (they are not listed on Part III of Schedule 3 of the Wildlife & Countryside Act 1981), the purchaser intended to purchase wigeon
and/or teal however was offered gadwall in the absence of those species and thus they were purchased in innocence (and very possibly sold in innocence too given
that it is the only common dabbling duck species not listed on this Schedule).
Table 1:Proportions of 84 Mallard, Teal (Anas crecca), Wigeon (A. penelope) and Gadwall14(A. strepera) purchased from 32 game dealers in
England shot with lead and non-toxic shot in winter 2013/14.
Mallard Teal Wigeon Gadwall Total
Shot type Number % Number % Number % Number % Number %
Lead 72 84 3 50 7 47 2 100 84 77
Bismuth 8 9 1 17 7 47 0 0 16 15
Steel 5 6 2 33 1 7 0 0 8 7
Tungsten 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Of 32 game dealers, 31 (97%) sold ducks shot with lead (in
comparison with 73% of 84 suppliers in the Defra-funded
compliance study (Cromie et al. 2010), which was significantly
more (Chi-squared test p=0.005).
Further results are provided in Annex 1 Supplementary
Information.
COMPLIANCE OVER TIME
Figure 1 provides a timeline of compliance as measured by
game dealer surveys and the shooter survey (Cromie et al.
2010) since the introduction of the Regulations in England in
1999 following a voluntary ban in wetlands introduced in 1995.
In addition to the continued poor compliance (as measured by
two methods), it serves to illustrate that various events such
as the Use Lead Legally campaign or increased awareness of
the issue of lead poisoning and/or non-compliance have not
improved compliance.
Findings from the shooting
media survey
Within the 72 shooting media articles reviewed, some 131
opinions were recorded, ranging from 1-6 opinions per article.
Figure 2 illustrates the variety and number of opinions within
the articles reviewed.
Overall, 87.8% of opinions (n=115) cited in 72 articles reflected
a resistance to change (see Figure 2 for the range of opinions)
while 12.2% (n=16) acknowledged a problem of either the
toxicity of lead for humans or wildlife, or that the law needed to
be obeyed (Figure 2). A small proportion of articles (0.7% n=5)
contained both ‘resisting’and ‘acknowledging’opinions.
Concern about the efficacy and costs of non-toxic ammunition
was the single most prevalent theme, accounting for 15.3%
(n=20) of all opinions cited, followed by“lead ammunition is not
a problem for human health” (11.4%, n=15), “lead poisoning is
not a problem for wildlife and “lead is a scapegoat for an anti-
shooting agenda”(both 10.7%, n=14).
From additionally looking at the two main shooting
organisations’ websites over time, reviewing other internet
shooting media and social media on an ad hoc basis, the
shooting papers’ content reflects the broader prevalent
narrative.
Dividing the survey by article type, 19 published letters
on the subject were reviewed and had a lower proportion
of blue ‘resisting change’ opinions than the average article
(including editorials and the editors writing a response
to a letter) (84.4% of 32 opinions vs 88.9% of 99 opinions
respectively). Correspondingly the letters contained a
higher proportion of orange ’accepting there’s a problem’
opinions in comparison with other types of article (15.6% of
32 opinions vs 11.1% of 99 opinions respectively). Although
this difference is not statistically significant (Chi-squared test
p>0.05) it may be suggestive of a greater acceptance of a
problem coming from the average shooter in the field rather
than the shooting media.
Ruth Cromie, Julia Newth, Jonathan Reeves, Michelle O’Brien, Katie Beckmann & Martin Brown