115
Finch 2012), the shooting media coverage, issues of trust and
inter-organisational politics. Again, all this is set in the broader
context of tensions between the field sports and conservation
communities on a range of issues of sustainability of some
hunting practices and the suspicion that conservation concerns
are actually motivated by an anti-hunting agenda.
The shooting media survey illustrates a prevalent theme as
being the ‘evidence for needing change is absent or invented/
exaggerated’. Social scientists may term this mistrust as ‘biased
assimilation’ where, in polarised debates, either side may seek
and assimilate evidence that reinforces their current beliefs
and existing attitudinal position and reject the contradictory
counterargument (McCright and Dunlap 2011, Corner et al.
2012). From the shooting perspective, Ali (2015) suggests that
the lead scientists may suffer from ‘white-hat bias’whereby they
select the evidence that supports their own understanding of
the situation.
This current debate may well be subject to what is termed
‘solution aversion’whereby an objection to the possible solution
(in this case transition to non-toxic ammunition) results in the
scepticism about the seriousness of the problem even if it is
based on sound science (Campbell and Kay 2014). These authors
reflect on the motivated disbelief that this creates. If the debate
is being framed within this context, although there is often a call
from the shooting community for more evidence (e.g. Ali 2015),
it would suggest that further evidence is unlikely to be accepted
by the shooting community if the solution to the problem
remains undesirable.
6. “DISCREDITING THE EVIDENCE, THE MESSENGERS
AND THE PROCESS”:
Those, in particular scientists and researchers, involved in work
which is controversial and/or contentious to industry can find
themselves in invidious positions. Needleman and Gee (2013)
reflect on this, for example, regarding the removal of lead from
petrol and EEA (2001, 2013) provides other examples.
For the lead ammunition debate, likely related to the model
of biased assimilation (McCright and Dunlap 2011, Corner
et al. 2012), it would seem that a practice has developed of
discrediting both the providers of evidence and the messengers
of unpalatable messages. The portrayal of the chair of the Lead
Ammunition Group, provides a good example of this. As the ex-
Chief Executive of BASC (a position he held for 25 years), he is
from the heart of the shooting community. This position likely
facilitated his ability to keep the complex and polarised Lead
Ammunition Group process together through its five years
of deliberations (indeed senior personnel from the shooting
community expressed confidence in the process (Douglas
2014)) and the minutes of the meetings, which were observed
by both Defra and FSA, indicate the extent of the procedural
approach17). Only once his final report was drafted, which both
highlighted the problem and the possible solution, did the
shooting stakeholders resign (Lead Ammunition Group 2015).
Since then both he and the process he led have been widely
criticised in the shooting media (Figure 2)(e.g. Walker 2015,
White-Spunner 2015).
The process of scientific investigation involves peer review and
evaluation by independent experts usually involving open
and thorough critiques (Spier 2002) thus few scientists can
afford not to be resilient to criticism. The media survey, and
wider narrative, however indicates a dismissal of the evidence
and particular criticism of some of the key scientists. In 2009
Friend et al. wrote “Little of what we have presented here
reflects the bitterness that characterized much of the struggle
to transition to the use of non-toxic shot for waterfowl hunting
in the US. Nor does it reflect the heavy personal costs to those
who championed the use of nontoxic shot, among them
state and federal employees, outdoor columnists, members
of the general public, academicians, researchers, and others.”
Friend’s words could have been written about the UK yet the
situation here is surely even more polarised as within the USA
the conservationists and hunting community are far more
integrated and often the same thing. Personal costs in the UK
situation no doubt include academics and personnel from
the conservation community and also those in the shooting
community who have had to deal professionally with lead over
the years, finding themselves criticised and unpopular with
colleagues from both poles of the debate.
7.“WHERE THE ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL POWER LIES”:
Following a five year ineffective voluntary phase-out, restrictions
on the importation, sale and use of practically all sizes of lead
angling fishing weights in the UK in the 1980s (Stroud 2015) to
prevent poisoning of species such as mute swans Cygnus olor,
were met with dismay by many anglers (M. Brown pers. comm.).
However, the change was accepted and non-toxic alternatives
were quickly seen as the norm (Cromie et al. 2010). The shooting
17 Lead Ammunition Group website
Sociological and political barriers to transition to non-toxic ammuntion: UK experience