114
shootingmedia as described and communications from the two
main shooting organisations. These are namely:
4. “TRADITION”:
Shooting and wider hunting activities are deeply traditional
within the UK, with hunting being a significant element of
British culture including art, literature, music, language and
lore. The word “traditional” is often used by shooters to describe
themselves or their pastime and likely involves a range of
concepts such as fine old gun craftsmanship, inherited stories
and guns, pride in maintaining tradition, and a sense of wanting
to be out in the countryside and free of intrusive regulation.
Persuading individuals toadoptwhat are seenas‘non-traditional’
behaviours is particularly complex yet can be achieved if the
issue becomes unacceptable to society e.g. changes to human
rights such as voting rights (e.g. Stewart et al. 2012) and/or the
benefits clearly outweigh the costs e.g. wearing seatbelts or not
smoking in enclosed public spaces (e.g. Fhaner and Hane 1973,
Fong et al. 2006). The societal importance of these issues may
be different to shooting but all of these examples involved great
initial resistance to change.
Tacklingchangetothetraditionofusingleadammunitionislikely
to involve a combination of reduction of the barriers outlined
here, a clear establishment of the costs of not changing (see later
section on costs), the benefits of changing (includingmore birds
to shoot), and leadership from the shooting community and/or
from influential, respected and trusted individuals from within
(e.g. Kanstrup 2010). It is worth noting that in a country such as
Denmark, the cultural acceptance/tradition of using non-toxic
shot (accepting that they had no choice after a national ban on
lead ammunition) has become established since their transition
in 1996 (Kanstrup 2015).
5. “POLARISED ENHANCED LOYALTIES”:
The opportunity for the conservation and shooting communities
to work together to address the above issues following the
introduction of the Regulations across the UK was missed.
Although there had beenwide stakeholder involvement leading
up to this point (Stroud 2015) and collaborative initiatives
thereafter e.g. a jointly owned public relations strategy, there
was likely a sense of the job having been completed and that
the law would be obeyed. Despite good information about the
law and the use of non-toxic alternatives provided primarily on
the BASCwebsite (Cromieet al. 2010), with hindsight, hearts and
Figure 3: Information poster produced ahead of the voluntary
phase out of lead in wetlands in 1995 (note the industry assurance of
the availability and efficacy of non-toxic shot).
minds of the wider shooting community had probably not been
won. It would have been valuable at that time to have prioritised
development of collaborative persuasive resources concerning
the actual problem of lead poisoning as well as the efficacy of
the non-toxic shot. For historical interest Figure 3 is a poster
produced as a joint government and shooting and conservation
community resource prior to the voluntary phase out of lead
shot in wetlands in 1995.
Since that time there has been the aforementioned range of
other developments, including wider understanding of risks of
lead ammunition to wildlife, livestock, humans and the wider
environment, plus the associated calls and policy drivers for its
substitution with non-toxic alternatives (e.g.Watson et al. 2009,
EFSA 2010, UNEP-CMS 2014a, 2014b). As the “threat to lead
ammunition”has emerged and change has become more likely,
the discourse has becomemore polarised (as exemplified by the
shooting media analysis) with a recurring narrative of this being
“an attack on shooting”. This has been likely fuelled by leaked
organisational position documents (Balmain 2010, Gray 2010,
Ruth Cromie, Julia Newth, Jonathan Reeves, Michelle O’Brien, Katie Beckmann & Martin Brown