Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNewth, JL
dc.contributor.authorLawrence, A
dc.contributor.authorCromie, RL
dc.contributor.authorSwift, JA
dc.contributor.authorRees, EC
dc.contributor.authorWood, KA
dc.contributor.authorStrong, EA
dc.contributor.authorReeves, J
dc.contributor.authorMcDonald, RA
dc.date.accessioned2020-07-01T13:08:35Z
dc.date.issued2019-06-03
dc.description.abstract1. 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.en_GB
dc.identifier.citationVol. 1 (3), pp. 347 - 361en_GB
dc.identifier.doi10.1002/pan3.30
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10871/121735
dc.language.isoenen_GB
dc.publisherWiley / British Ecological Societyen_GB
dc.relation.urlhttps://zenodo.org/record/2653514#.XMbMXKbsZD8en_GB
dc.rights© 2019 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.en_GB
dc.subjectammunitionen_GB
dc.subjectenvironmental contaminantsen_GB
dc.subjecthuntersen_GB
dc.subjecthuntingen_GB
dc.subjectleaden_GB
dc.subjectQ methodologyen_GB
dc.subjectshootingen_GB
dc.subjectwaterfowlen_GB
dc.titlePerspectives of ammunition users on the use of lead ammunition and its potential impacts on wildlife and humansen_GB
dc.typeArticleen_GB
dc.date.available2020-07-01T13:08:35Z
dc.identifier.issn2575-8314
dc.descriptionThis is the final version. Available on open access from Wiley via the DOI in this recorden_GB
dc.descriptionData availability statement: All data supporting the results in this paper are available from Zenodo (digital repository): https://zenodo.org/record/2653514#.XMbMXKbsZD8 (Newth et al., 2019).en_GB
dc.identifier.journalPeople and Natureen_GB
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_GB
dcterms.dateAccepted2019-04-17
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_GB
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2019-04-17
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_GB
refterms.dateFCD2020-07-01T13:06:35Z
refterms.versionFCDVoR
refterms.dateFOA2020-07-01T13:08:40Z
refterms.panelAen_GB
refterms.depositExceptionpublishedGoldOA


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

© 2019 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society.

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2019 The Authors. People and Nature published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Ecological Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.