No abstract

Each year, hunters from 12 of the 27 European Union (EU) countries and the UK shoot over 6 million large game mammals, 12 million rabbits and hares and over 80 million birds. They support an international game meat market worth over 1.1 thousand million Euros. Animals shot with lead ammunition frequently contain lead fragments in the carcass which contaminate meals made from game meat with concentrations of lead substantially above the maximum allowable level (ML) set by European Commission Regulation EC1881/2006 for meat from domesticated animals. This poses a health risk to frequent consumers of wild-shot game meat, with children and pregnant women being particularly vulnerable. Total replacement of lead rifle and shotgun ammunition with available non-toxic alternatives is needed for all hunting in EU nations to prevent exposure of humans and wildlife to ammunition-derived lead and to allow the depletion of the long-term environmental legacy of lead from spent ammunition. We propose that EC1881/2006 is amended to incorporate an ML for game meats as a supplementary measure to the replacement of lead ammunition. This would harmonise food safety standards for lead in meats traded across and imported into the EU.

Much evidence demonstrates the adverse effects of lead ammunition on wildlife, their habitats and human health, and confirms that the use of such ammunition has no place within sustainable hunting. We identify the provisions that define sustainable hunting according to European law and international treaties, together with their guidance documents. We accept the substantial evidence for lead's actual and potential effects on wildlife, habitats and health as persuasive and assess how these effects relate to stated provisions for sustainability and hunting. We evaluate how continued use of lead ammunition negatively affects international efforts to halt loss of biodiversity, sustain wildlife populations and conserve their habitats. We highlight the indiscriminate and avoidable health and welfare impacts for large numbers of exposed wild animals as ethically unsustainable. In societal terms, continued use of lead ammunition undermines public perceptions of hunting. Given the existence of acceptable, non-toxic alternatives for lead ammunition, we conclude that hunting with lead ammunition cannot be justified under established principles of public/international policy and is not sustainable. Changing from lead ammunition to non-toxic alternatives will bring significant nature conservation and human health gains, and from the hunter's perspective will enhance societal acceptance of hunting. Change will create opportunities for improved constructive dialogue between hunting stakeholders and others engaged with enhancing biodiversity and nature conservation objectives.

No abstract

The transition to non-lead ammunition has been enforced by regulations on use and possession of lead shot and rifle bullets. Here we review the scientific and technical literature about this regulatory process in Europe and give some notes of its effectiveness to reduce this source of lead contamination in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Presently, lead shot use has been legally restricted in 23 European countries. Two, Denmark and The Netherlands, have a total ban of lead gunshot use in all types of habitats, 16 countries have a total ban in wetlands and/or for waterbird hunting, and 5 have a partial ban implemented only in some wetlands. The legal regulation of lead bullets is limited to some German regions. This review also highlights the need to know the level of compliance with the ban on lead ammunition and the subsequent benefits for the susceptible species and for game meat safety.

Denmark was the first European country to completely ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting. This paper reviews the process behind this phase-out to document its history, successes, and pitfalls, and to make the Danish experiences accessible for the benefit of other countries, authorities, and stakeholders who face nature management challenges implementing similar change. A review of the content of magazines published by the three hunters' organizations during the 1978-1992 transition period was carried out, to assess the general discourse and identify the primary concerns and attitudes during the phase-out of lead shot for hunting in Denmark. Hunters were initially negative towards the change. Resistance was driven by concern about the quality, safety issues, and expensive cost of non-toxic alternatives, compounded by lack of organizational leadership and tensions between stakeholders. As a result of the widening appreciation of the environmental effects of dispersed lead shot and the introduction of new generations of alternative shot types, hunter attitudes became positive and constructive. Change need not pose an obstruction to continued hunting opportunity. On the contrary, it is believed that the value from the enhancement of the public image of hunters resulting from the reduction in the environmental dispersal of a recognized contaminant is of paramount importance for the long-term political sustainability of hunting.

A proposed European Union (EU)-wide restriction on the use of lead gunshot for shooting in and over wetlands estimated that the societal benefits of a restriction outweighed costs, despite few identified benefits being quantified economically. A subsequent Annex XV Investigation Report on the evidence of impacts of lead ammunition in terrestrial environments concluded that additional measures to control its use are warranted, although to date this has not been further evaluated. To help inform this process, we review the literature and undertake new analyses to estimate the costs of continued use of lead ammunition associated with impacts on wildlife, people and the environment. We estimate minimum annual direct costs across the EU and Europe of c. €383 million–€960 million and €444 million–€1.3 thousand million respectively. The value that society places on being able to avoid these losses, estimated using a ‘willingness to pay’ approach, was c. €2.2 thousand million for wildfowl alone. Our estimated costs of the continued use of lead ammunition across the EU appear to be considerably greater than the likely costs of switching to non‐toxic alternative ammunition types, although these have not been formally estimated in full.

Context.In response to the toxic health threats posed by lead (Pb), there is currently a focus on transitioning to lead-free bullets for shooting wild animals. Aim. We aimed to quantify the killing efficiency and animal welfare outcomes of lead-based and lead-free (copper-based) bullets for ground-based shooting of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Methods. We used shooter-collected data from recreational diurnal hunting and professional nocturnal culling during 2020-2021. Shooters recorded rifle calibre, cartridge type, bullet mass, bullet type, shooting outcomes (miss, wound or kill), shooting distance, flight distance (the distance between where the animal was shot and where it died) as an assumed positive correlate of time to incapacitation, anatomical zones struck by bullets, and frequency of bullet exit wounds. We used flight distance as our response variable, assuming that it is positively correlated with time to incapacitation. To examine the role of several predictor variables (including bullet type) potentially influencing flight distance, the dataset was reduced to those deer killed with a single thoracic shot. Key results. Our data captured shooting events involving 276 deer, with 124 deer shot at with lead-based bullets and 152 with copper-based bullets. Most (87%) of the deer were killed with a single shot. The frequency of non-fatal wounding was <4% for both bullet types and there was no distinct difference in the probability of a single shot kill for deer shot with either bullet type. For those deer killed with a single thoracic shot (n = 198), there was no evidence that bullet energy or shooting distance influenced flight distance. After accounting for differences in terminal kinetic energy, the mean flight distance of deer shot with lead-free bullets (35 m) was 56% greater than that of deer shot with lead-based bullets (22 m). Conclusions. Lead-based and lead-free bullets produced similar animal welfare outcomes for shooting sambar deer. Implications. A transition to lead-free ammunition for shooting sambar deer would have minimal impact on efficiency or animal welfare outcomes.