94
manufacture let alone distribute, and even less for shooters to
use in the field. Industry must have the assurance of established
markets (Thomas and Guitart 2010). Even then, the price of
lead-free ammunition will determine the market share, as
indicated by the relative prices for Tungsten Matrix and steel
shot cartridges. Adoption of voluntary use policies in the UK is
not a prudent approach. If there is no compunction on shooters
to use lead-free ammunition, there is no reason for retailers to
stock it, and no economic return to industry to make it (Thomas
and Owen 1996).
The issue of compliance also impinges on availability. Cromie
et al. (2002, 2010, 2015) reported that there was very low
compliance (approximately 70% non-compliance) among
shooters of waterfowl in England with the required use of
lead-free cartridges, despite their availability and low cost.
In the absence of enforcement in the UK, such behaviour
continues, despite more than a decade of encouragement by
shooting organisations to obey the law (Cromie et al. 2015).
One can also envisage a situation in which regulations are
introduced requiring lead-free shot for all game shooting in
the UK, but compliance could still be low because legal lead
cartridges produced for target shooting might still be used for
other terrestrial and upland game shooting. The majority of
cartridge manufacture in the UK is to satisfy the target shooting
community. Thus Gamebore indicated that, for 2013-14, 75-
80% of its cartridge production was for target shooting: less
than 25% of production was for game shooting, including lead-
free ammunition (R. Cove, pers. comm.)12. Thomas and Guitart
(2013) showed that UK cartridge makers already produce steel
shot cartridges suited to clay target shooting, and that their use
could reduce the lead pollution footprint associated with this
sport. The only practical way to achieve high compliance is to
adopt the same regulatory approach as Denmark, and across all
shooting sports.
EFFECTIVENESS OF LEAD-FREE SUBSTITUTES
Twenty-three years of steel shot use in the USA, combined
with about a decade’s use of bismuth-tin shot and tungsten-
based shot, indicate that these substitutes are very effective in
producing humane kills of upland game birds and waterfowl,
when used responsibly (Pierce et al. 2014). A similar conclusion is
reached from hunters’ experiences in Denmark (Kanstrup 2006)
where lead-free ammunition must be used for waterfowl and
upland game hunting.
12Mr. R. Cove, President and CEO, Kent Gamebore, November, 2014.
The use of lead-free rifle bullets is also increasing in popularity
in the USA, not because they are lead-free, but because they are
ballistically very effective. As evidence of this, the US National
Rifle Association awarded Barnes Bullets Inc. of Utah the 2012
American Hunter Ammunition Product of the Year Golden
Bullseye Award for its VOR-TX line of lead-free ammunition
(Thomas 2013). Only one US jurisdiction (California) requires
their use in one part of the state, but the availability of a wide
range of bullet calibres, weight and types far exceeds what
one might expect for this one state, alone (Thomas 2013). It is
possible that different US and European makers are anticipating
other states’ making similar regulations as California, and want
to be ready with their own brands of lead-free rifle ammunition.
Concerns about the effectiveness of this type of ammunition
have been dispelled by the field studies of Spicher (2008),
Knott et al. (2009), and Grund et al. (2010), and the exhaustive
ballistic work of Trinogga et al. (2013) and Gremse et al. (2014).
The demonstrated effectiveness of this lead-free ammunition,
coupled with its low costs of use, could enable government
regulators to require its use across the UK and elsewhere.
THE INTERESTS OF LANDOWNERS
Clients who shoot lead shot cartridges over the estates
of landowners leave a legacy of spent shot that is rarely
recovered. This shot can be ingested by gamebirds resulting in
lead exposure (Butler et al. 2005, Potts 2005, Thomas et al. 2009,
reviewed in Pain et al. 2015). This is of greater concern to wild
populations of birds as opposed to stocked birds because of
the risk of sub-clinical poisoning and mortality across seasons.
The use of lead-free shot on these estates would (other than
from limited legacy exposure) remove this risk to surviving
birds. Additionally, the gamebirds sold to the retail foodmarket
would now conform to a “lead-free” standard, and benefit
consumers. Any costs are externalised to the paying clients,
not the landowners, so it is in the interest of landowners to
keep their estates lead-free.
A similar case can be presented for shooting large game with
rifles. Many deer shot in the UK have their internal organs
(known as ‘gralloch’) removed and left, exposed, in the field.
Any lead bullet fragments remaining in the discarded organs
could be consumed by scavengers that might then succumb
to lead poisoning (Watson et al. 2009). A requirement that only
lead-free rifle ammunition be used would negate any risks of
lead exposure from ammunition sources to wild scavengers.
Similarly, the carcass would be also‘lead-free’, and satisfy human
Vernon G. Thomas