1. Recent national and international policy initiatives have aimed to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition. Despite restrictions, in the
UK, lead ammunition remains the most widespread source of environmental lead
contamination to which wildlife may be exposed.
2. The risks arising from the use of ...
1. Recent national and international policy initiatives have aimed to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition. Despite restrictions, in the
UK, lead ammunition remains the most widespread source of environmental lead
contamination to which wildlife may be exposed.
2. The risks arising from the use of lead ammunition and the measures taken to
mitigate these have prompted intense and sometimes acrimonious discussion between stakeholder groups, including those advancing the interests of shooting,
wildlife conservation, public health and animal welfare.
3. However, relatively little is known of the perspectives of individual ammunition
users, despite their role in adding lead to the environment and their pivotal place
in any potential changes to practice. Using Q‐methodology, we identified the perspectives of ammunition users in the UK on lead ammunition in an effort to bring
forward evidence from these key stakeholders.
4. Views were characterised by two statistically and qualitatively distinct perspectives: (a) Open to change—comprised ammunition users that refuted the view that
lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning in wild birds, believed that
solutions to reduce the risks of poisoning are needed, were happy to use non‐lead
alternatives and did not feel that the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the
demise of shooting; and (b) Status quo—comprised ammunition users who did not
regard lead poisoning as a major welfare problem for wild birds, were ambivalent
about the need for solutions and felt that lead shot is better than steel at killing
and not wounding an animal. They believed opposition to lead ammunition was
driven more by a dislike of shooting than evidence of any harm.
5. Adherents to both perspectives agreed that lead is a toxic substance. There was
consensus that involvement of stakeholders from all sides of the debate was desirable and that to be taken seriously by shooters, information about lead poisoning
should come from the shooting community.