138
These birds got their lead mainly from fishing-weights rather
than gunshot, and following a ban in lead fishing weights in
1987, lead-caused mortality declined from 25% per year in the
1970s to 2% in more recent years, and populations switched
from decline to increase. On the most affected river systems,
swan numbers doubled within a decade (Perrins et al. 2003).
This showed convincingly that, if effective restrictions were
imposed, this highly vulnerable species could and did respond
by recovery.
Alternatives to lead
Non-toxic alternatives to lead ammunition have been
developed, are widely available, and apparently perform well,
once the right ammunition has been identified for a particular
purpose and gun, and hunters have got used to it (Gremse and
Reiger 2015, Kanstrup 2015, Thomas 2015). The argument that
lead is best, and that alternatives are less good, is no longer
tenable. Steel shot is of similar price to lead shot, but some
other alternatives are currently more expensive. Nevertheless,
the cost of new ammunition is still trivial compared with the
other costs of hunting (Thomas 2015). Lead gunshot was
banned totally in Denmark nearly two decades ago and in
some other countries more recently, apparently without any
detrimental effect on the sport (Kanstrup 2015). The same
numbers of people are still hunting, and at similar level. Lead
is clearly dispensable as a form of ammunition. In Germany,
research on the new non-toxic bullets has been undertaken to
improve their performance, and to smooth the transition from
lead (Gremse and Reiger 2015).
More research
One standard way to avoid making controversial decisions is
to call for more research, from which we can usually benefit.
But over the years, evidence on the problems caused by lead
ammunition has continued to accumulate, and specific gaps
in knowledge have been identified and filled, continually
updating our information base. Recent information has served
mainly to confirmwhat we already know, and that the problems
persist, but it has added further worrying facts. The essential
messages have not changed. Surely we already have sufficient
scientifically-robust information to take action against the
use of lead-based ammunition for sport hunting. It would be
irresponsible not to do so.
Previous restrictions on the use
of lead ammunition
Previous legislation in England in 1999, concerning the use
of lead over wetlands and for wildfowl shooting, has been
lamentably ineffective, because of lack of compliance and
enforcement. People evidently feel that they will not be caught,
and the statistics on prosecutions confirm this. There has been
no decline in lead poisoning in waterfowl examined in Britain
from before and after this ban (Newth et al. 2012). Among ducks
intended for human consumption purchased in Britain in 2008-
10, at least 70% had been shot with lead ammunition (Cromie et
al. 2015). A laudable campaign, led by hunting organisations to
encourage compliance, did not change this.
Future restrictions on the use of
lead ammunition
There are two approaches towards getting hunters to switch
from lead to less toxic alternatives. One is by persuasion;
informing them of the facts and hoping they will make the
switch themselves.This approachhas clearlynotworked: witness
the continued use of lead shot over wetlands for more than a
decade after the 1999 ban; witness the continuing opposition
by some hunters and their organisations to restrictions in the
use of lead. This leaves us with the only other approach which is
mandatory. All other major uses of lead have long been banned
or strictly regulatedby law, yet this particular use, whichprovides
a direct and important route for lead into the human blood
stream, remains unrestricted. Legislation proved necessary in
Denmark to cut the use of lead; as in Britain, the dissemination of
scientifically-collected findings and appeals to the better nature
of hunters had not worked. Danish hunters now accept it, and
(as confirmed by surveys) would not go back.
Awareness problems
The questions that remain in my mind are not so much to do
with the effects of lead, on which the scientific evidence is
overwhelming,widespreadandunequivocal.Rathertheyconcern
the attitudes of many hunters and their representatives. What
a pity we had so few representatives of hunting organisations
attending the symposium, while the majority of those invited
declined to attend. Given all the information we now have on the
Ian Newton