Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans

Newth, Julia L.; Lawrence, A. J.; Cromie, Ruth; Swift, John A.; Rees, Eileen C.; Wood, Kevin A.; Strong, Emily; Reeves, Jonathan; McDonald, Robbie A.

doi:10.1002/pan3.30

Cited by 17 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many hunters perceive and defend hunting as an established tradition, and hunters' self-perception is ingrained in this tradition. This tradition is conservative, resistant to change, and not proactive [5,21,22]. This makes hunting vulnerable when the surrounding community values are changing rapidly in directions that make hunting more difficult to integrate and sustain politically.…”

Section: The Hunting and Shooting Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transitioning to lead-free ammunition use in hunting: socio-economic and regulatory considerations for the European Union and other jurisdictions

Kanstrup

Thomas

2020

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Hunting throughout the European Union (EU) has left an accumulating legacy of spent lead ammunition that has deleterious toxic effects upon the environment, wildlife, and humans who consume hunted game meat. Non-toxic lead substitutes for both rifle and shotgun ammunition have been developed and are required in some EU jurisdictions. Within the EU, at least 28 companies make or distribute non-lead shotgun ammunition, and a further 14 companies distribute non-lead rifle ammunition. However, a broad transition to the use of these products has been resisted by the hunting and ammunition-making communities. Results and conclusions: It is in the self-interest of these communities to recognize the consequences of externalizing the effects of spent lead ammunition to society, and to make hunting more sustainable and socially acceptable. The paper endorses the ongoing process under the European Commission (EC) to introduce wide and fundamental restrictions on the use, trade and possession of lead ammunition for all types of hunting within 3 years, and within 5 years for clay target shooting. This would align EC regulations on lead from ammunition with lead from other anthropogenic sources, and EC regulations that protect the natural environment, especially the conservation of wild birds. Simultaneous EC regulation of lead in marketed game meats would provide extra health protection and assure a safe source of game meat products for consumers.

show abstract

Section: The Hunting and Shooting Communitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transitioning to lead-free ammunition use in hunting: socio-economic and regulatory considerations for the European Union and other jurisdictions

Kanstrup

Thomas

2020

Environ Sci Eur

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In response to the health threats posed by toxic lead to humans and scavenging wildlife, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead‐based to lead‐free bullets for shooting (i.e., harvesting, culling, recreational hunting) of wild animals (Martin et al 2017, Arnemo et al 2019, Newth et al 2019, Schulz et al 2019, Thomas et al 2019). Recently, attention devoted to animal welfare in wildlife management has increased markedly, including for shooting methods (Hampton et al 2016, Stokke et al 2018, DeNicola et al 2019).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of Lead‐Free .22 LR Bullets for Shooting European Rabbits

Hampton

DeNicola²,

Forsyth

2020

Wildlife Society Bulletin

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to health threats posed by toxic lead to humans and scavenging wildlife, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead-based to lead-free bullets for shooting (harvesting, culling, or recreational hunting) of wild animals. However, the efficacy of lead-free bullets for shooting small mammals has seldom been evaluated. We compared the animal welfare outcomes and costs of using lead-based and lead-free bullets in the world's most popular cartridge, the rimfire .22 LR, for shooting wild European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in Australia, during August 2019. Ballistic testing revealed that lead-free bullets were less precise than one type of commonly used lead-based bullet when shot from one rifle. We shot at 53 and 115 rabbits with lead-based and lead-free bullets, respectively. A substantially lower percentage of rabbits that were hit were wounded (2%) with lead-based bullets compared with lead-free bullets (20%). Hence, fewer shots were needed to kill rabbits with lead-based (1.27) than lead-free (3.98) bullets. Radiographic examination of 28 rabbits shot with lead-based bullets and 27 rabbits shot with lead-free bullets revealed metallic fragments present in 82% and 41% of carcasses, respectively. In 52% of rabbits shot with lead-free bullets, there was no radiographic evidence of bullets or fragments, indicating pass-through shots. The greater cost per bullet and larger number of bullets required to kill a rabbit meant that using lead-free bullets cost 6 times more per rabbit killed than using lead-based bullets. The only commercially available lead-free .22 LR bullets in Australia at the time of our study produced substantially poorer animal welfare outcomes, and were more expensive per killed rabbit, than lead-based bullets. Lead-free bullets designed to reduce lead exposure to scavenging wildlife and humans and should be assessed in terms of animal welfare outcomes and costs prior to being considered for widespread use.

show abstract

“…Some stated that non-lead rifle ammunition is just as toxic as lead ammunition, hence, a transition would only exchange one potential problem with another. Some criticized the project team for "wasting" their (and that of the "respondents") time on a survey like this and found the whole discourse on lead in rifle ammunition to be an attempt to discredit hunters and, in the long term, develop an anti-hunting ploy as also demonstrated in the other studies [30,31]. This combination of dismissing the potential problem with lead ammunition and at the same time dismissing non-lead types was also observed in the discourse among hunters during the Danish phase-out of lead shotgun pellets in the 1980s [29] and in similar processes in the other countries [32].…”

Section: Knowledge Concern and Use Are Interconnectedmentioning

confidence: 92%

Non-lead rifle ammunition: Danish hunters’ attitudes

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Lead particles from hunting rifle ammunition become embedded in the tissue of shot animals and pose a health risk to predators and scavengers that eat discarded offal or parts of non-retrieved carcasses of shot game animals, as well as to humans who consume game. Copper and copper–zinc alloys are the most widely used alternatives to leaded ammunition. In Denmark, there has been a growing awareness of the toxic environmental effects of lead ammunition and the Danish government, supported by the Danish Hunters’ Association, announced in November 2020 a forthcoming ban on the use of lead-based bullets for hunting purposes intended to take effect in 2023. The question that remains to be addressed is how the Danish hunting community perceives lead ammunition as a problem and non-lead alternatives as a solution, and whether the willingness to change demonstrated by the hunters’ representatives reflects the attitude of the individual hunters. We studied this in a survey targeting 6000 randomly selected Danish rifle hunters, mapping their knowledge and concerns regarding lead rifle ammunition as well as their use of lead and non-lead ammunition. Results We found that approximately one-fifth of the use of rifle ammunition for hunting in Denmark in 2019 was non-lead. Hunters’ knowledge of and concern for the adverse impacts of lead ammunition and the opportunities to switch to non-lead alternatives were generally limited. However, some showed an open-minded attitude and we found that such knowledge and concern increased the likelihood of hunters deciding to use non-lead ammunition. Hunters mainly got their information from hunting organizations and colleagues and expressed a distinct lack of information and guidance on the topic from ministerial authorities responsible for hunting administration. Conclusions Some hunters have already changed to use non-lead rifle ammunition completely or in part, and others show an open attitude to discussing the issue and receiving more information particularly from hunting authorities. Some hunters demonstrated a critical or negative attitude towards a change. Communication of the adverse impacts of leaded ammunition in terms of the risk of lead poisoning to wildlife and humans and the opportunities of switching to the existing efficient and safe alternatives is essential regardless of the formal approach and will be crucial for the effectiveness of the regulation announced by the Danish government.

show abstract

Perspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humans

Cited by 17 publications

References 49 publications

Transitioning to lead-free ammunition use in hunting: socio-economic and regulatory considerations for the European Union and other jurisdictions

Transitioning to lead-free ammunition use in hunting: socio-economic and regulatory considerations for the European Union and other jurisdictions

Assessment of Lead‐Free .22 LR Bullets for Shooting European Rabbits

Non-lead rifle ammunition: Danish hunters’ attitudes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About