113
the problem for reasons of: ethics of shooting10, as poisoning
might be seen in a similar light to crippling or harming animals;
maintaining healthy populations of birds for shooting and
conservation; potential for negative impacts on the public
image of shooting; and/or the problem representing ‘unwise
use’of a natural resource (Lecocq 2002).
To date, the conservation community has failed to persuade
the shooting community (and wider public no doubt) of the
substantial problem and impacts of lead poisoning. Publishing
science is valuable for scientists and policy makers but may have
little impact on broader societal understanding in the absence
of interpretation of that science for the benefit of specific
audiences (e.g. Miller 2001). Awareness-raising tools have been
shown tohaveabeneficial role if targetedon specificweaknesses
in knowledge that are most directly related to attitude and
behaviour change (Bath 1998, AEWA 2009). However, with such
a strong narrativewithin the shootingmedia that lead poisoning
is not a (significant) problem (Figure 2), awareness-raising of
the issue within the shooting community would have to firstly
address the prevalent narrative which would involve politically
difficult changes of organisational positioning. Thereafter,
awareness-raising would rely on building communication of
tailoredmessages usingappropriate tools (e.g.videoand images,
infographics, facilitated workshops etc.), most importantly
delivered by trusted and credible messengers (AEWA 2009).
Exactly who these messengers may be is difficult to identify
in the UK as those involved in dealing with lead poisoning are
often portrayed as anti-shooting (Figure 2 illustrates the opinion
that lead is used as a scapegoat for an anti-hunting agenda),
and a vocal advocate from within the UK shooting community
(e.g. a wildfowler who has been using non-toxic ammunition
for >15 years and still enjoys his/her sport) has, to the authors’
knowledge, yet to emerge and be accepted.
2. “DON’T LIKE THE ALTERNATIVES”:
Including price, efficacy and availability: this has been a serious
barrier in other countries (e.g. AEWA 2009), is illustrated well in
themedia survey (Figure 2), and is by the first author’s experience
the foremost concern of the shooter in the field. Techniques
such as non-toxic ammunition shooting clinics/demonstrations,
run by shooters, which demonstrate the efficacy of non-toxic
ammunition, have been shown to work well to help change
perception of non-toxic ammunition (AEWA 2001, Friend et al.
2009). Research such as that of Mondain-Monval et al. (2015) to
indicate the role of hunter effectiveness rather than shot type is
also valuable (effectiveness was essentially related to practice of
the shooter plus their assiduity (including judgment of distance)
and was negatively related to wind strength and number of
shots fired i.e. a lassitude effect).
Economies of scale andmarket forces, particularlywhenmarkets
are guaranteed i.e. following legislative requirements (Kanstrup
2010) could potentially help to bring down the price of some
of the less frequently used non-toxic ammunition types (steel,
themost frequently used non-toxic shot type across the world, is
currently comparably priced to lead)(Thomas 2015). It is perhaps
worth noting from the game dealer surveys (above and Cromie
et al. 2002, 2010) that bismuth, rather than steel, was the most
commonly found non-toxic shot for wildfowl shooting. If there
is perhaps a particular preference for this shot type, then its
pricemay be less of a barrier for wildfowlers who would typically
fire fewer shots per ‘shooting event’ than driven game shooters
where many shots are often fired (accepting that even in these
situations ammunition still remains a small part of the driven
game shooting costs).
3. “NOT GOING TO GET CAUGHT”:
It is a reality that non-compliance with the law in the UK is likely
to go undetected with all but no enforcement. In over 15 years
of the lead Regulations in England, there has only ever been
one conviction and that was an offence only detected after a
shooter had (seemingly by accident) illegally shot a swan16 . The
authors are unaware of any convictions in Scotland, Wales and
Northern Ireland.
It is likely that compliance is higher in wildfowling clubs than
in other shooting situations as there is some level of“oversight”
of shooting activities and associated peer pressure. Stricter
enforcement with a real possibility of penalty has been shown
to work in some situations in the USA (Thomas 2009) and
Spain (Mateo et al. 2014) with use of government supported
enforcement officers. Given current government finances it
seems unlikely that increased policing and enforcement of
the current laws will be undertaken. Alternatively greater
“oversight” of shooters could be created by e.g. introduction of
licensing measures.
Several other barriers are proposed
These following barriers are based primarily on discussions with
a broad range of stakeholders, following the narrative in the
16
Sociological and political barriers to transition to non-toxic ammuntion: UK experience