The transition to non-lead sporting ammunition and fishing weights: Review of progress and barriers to implementation

Abstract

This review presents evidence of lead exposure and toxicity to wildlife and humans from spent shotgun and rifle ammunition and fishing weights, and the barriers and bridges to completing the transition to non-lead products. Despite the international availability of effective non-lead substitutes, and that more jurisdictions are adopting suitable policies and regulations, a broader transition to non-lead alternatives is prevented because resolution remains divided among disparate human user constituencies. Progress has occurred only where evidence is most compelling or where a responsible public authority with statutory powers has managed to change mindsets in the wider public interest. Arguments opposing lead bans are shown to lack validity. Differing national regulations impede progress, requiring analysis to achieve better regulation. Evidence that lead bans have reduced wildlife exposure should be used more to promote sustainable hunting and fishing. Evidence of the lead contribution from hunted game to human exposure should shape policy and regulation to end lead ammunition use. The Special Issue presents evidence that a transition to non-lead products is both warranted and feasible.

Introduction

Although lead is biologically unessential, it has been important in human cultural evolution, despite awareness of its toxicity to humans for many centuries (Hernberg 2000). The biochemical actions of lead in the bloodstream (Kirberger et al. 2013; Maret 2017) are similar among diverse animal species because of their homologous physiological origins. Hence, the similar manifestations of exposure and toxicity in different animal and human species regardless of whether the lead originated from lead shot, bullets, sinkers, or other anthropogenic sources. Awareness of the toxic effects of assimilated lead in humans has led to passing of national laws and regulations in many nations, mainly in relation to paints and gasoline, and is still continuing (UNEP 2010, 2016). A consensus statement by some of the leading scientific experts on the deleterious effects of lead ingestion called for action to reduce the use of lead ammunition (Bellinger et al. 2013), in the same manner as lead reduction in paints, gasolines, and other human applications.

The above quotation of Franklin attests to the problems of eliminating lead from all human uses, especially the lengthy, highly contested attempts to thwart bans on the use of lead, in gasoline and paint (Rosner and Markowitz 2007), and, more recently, in ammunition and fishing weights (Stroud 2015). Evidence of the toxicity of ingested lead to birds is over a century old (Bowles 1908). However, it was not until the 1970s that attempts to prevent this wildlife disease began (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). A temporal progression in the understanding of the extent and impacts of lead exposure among wildlife exists. Initially, it was seen primarily among migratory waterfowl and their predators, then to upland game and their predators. The role of lead from spent rifle bullets in the poisoning of carrion feeders appeared later (Helander et al. 2009; Legagneux et al. 2014; Garbett et al. 2018; Isomursu et al. 2018), as did the effects of ingested lead from hunter-shot game meat upon human health (Bjerregaard et al. 2004; Fachehoun et al. 2015; Green and Pain 2015). The same time frame has accompanied bans on the use of lead shot, beginning in 1986 with Denmark and 1991 in the USA, with bans for hunting waterfowl over wetland habitats, and continues to the present. To date, 33 nations have passed national or regional legislation requiring use of non-lead1 shotgun ammunition, but mainly for hunting in wetlands or hunting particular waterfowl species (Stroud 2015). Only in continental USA, California, and some German jurisdictions has enforced regulation been implemented to protect susceptible raptor species from ingestion of lead from hunted game: Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) throughout the USA, California Condors (Gymnogyps californianus) in California (Thomas 2009), and White-tailed Sea Eagles (Haliaeetus albicilla) in Germany (Krone et al. 2009).

Canada banned the use of lead fishing sinkers to prevent fatal poisoning of Common Loons (Gavia immer) in 1997, but only in national parks and national wildlife areas which comprise a minority of the species national habitat. Only five US states (Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and Vermont) have enacted legislation to prevent lead poisoning from ingested lead sinkers during their breeding period, leaving this species, and other piscivorous species, susceptible to lead sinker exposure in other parts of their winter range (Thomas 2019). The UK passed in 1987 a regulation to prevent use of commonly ingested fishing sinkers by Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) (Sears and Hunt 1991). Denmark and The Netherlands stand out as the only nations to have banned completely the use of lead shot for hunting. Paradoxically, Denmark, while also banning trade in lead fishing weights, still allows use of lead-core rifle ammunition for hunting (Kanstrup et al. 2016a).

The development of non-lead shotgun and rifle ammunition and fishing sinkers has facilitated the transition to non-lead products. However, despite the existence of effective non-toxic substitutes for hunting and fishing, a range of obstacles has been created to impede this transition. While there is a single lead exposure issue arising from the use of lead gunshot, rifle bullets, and fishing sinkers, and their predictable effects on wildlife and the environment, the different socio-political issues surrounding their use often prevent that which scientific evidence would recommend (Cromie et al. 2015; Arnemo et al. 2016).

Several major reviews of lead exposure and toxicity to wildlife have been made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1986, for the USA), Pain (1992), Watson et al. (2009), Delahay and Spray ( 2015, for Britain and Europe). The present review, with emphasis on the more recent literature, examines the principal factors that have made the transition to non-lead products such a slow process, and indicates how regulatory progress on this issue could be accelerated. Denial of the issue (Arnemo et al. 2016) and recalcitrance to progress thrive on ignorance of scientific understanding (Cromie et al. 2015). Thus, the development of government policy and petitions for the use of non-lead products has to be based on the latest and best available scientific evidence. This includes evidence of the latest geographic occurrences of lead exposure and toxicity to convince authorities that the issue does occur within their jurisdiction, and further evidence of the adverse overt and sub-clinical effects on an ever-growing number of species, including humans. Reports on the conservation benefits of using non-lead ammunition are growing rapidly, as is the economic evidence concerning their availability and costs.

Factors impeding the transition to non-lead products

Diversity of sporting communities using lead products

The enormous scientific evidence of lead exposure and toxicity to wildlife and humans from different types and uses of ammunition (Arnemo et al. 2016) and sinkers (Franson et al. 2003) would suggest that a broad transition to non-lead products would occur. Such is not the case. Requirements for non-lead ammunition and sinkers have been made only where and when the evidence is most compelling or where a responsible public authority with statutory powers has managed to change mindsets in the wider public interest. This is due, partly, to the diversity of the sporting constituencies and their national and international representative agencies. Thus hunters of waterfowl, upland game, and big game have different perceptions of problematic lead exposure and how to resolve it. Even more distinct are the perceptions of the non-hunting target shooters and sport anglers. The only commonality among these constituencies is a reluctance to forgo use of lead products (Thomas and Guitart 2016)-the antithesis of their sports’ sustainability (Kanstrup et al. 2018).

The international ammunition industry, while well able to supply non-lead ammunition to all its consumers, endorses the pro-lead lobby by mis-representing scientific information to contend that lead in ammunition is not toxic (AFEMS/WFSA 2015; Arnemo et al. 2016). The International Shooting Sports Federation that represents target shooting at the Olympic level denies that its sports warrant use of non-lead munitions (Thomas and Guitart 2013). While current emphasis to use non-lead ammunition is placed on hunting, the release of lead from target shooting is regulated in few jurisdictions, despite its much higher release of lead to environments (Thomas and Guitart 2013). Collectively, these disparate sport groups and their representative agencies are a potent barrier to ending lead exposure, despite the universally common symptoms of lead exposure and toxicity seen in the environment, wildlife, and humans. Complementing the interests of these sporting groups are the arms and ammunition industries whose economic interests also favor the continued use of lead products (AFEMS/WFSA 2015).

Questionable validity of the population-level criterion

Opposition to a ban on lead shot for game hunting has been based on the criterion of whether the observed level of lead-induced mortality depresses the population status of a species in question, meaning a negative effect on recruitment and survivorship (GWCT 2016). It is contended that if the afflicted population can withstand that level of mortality, in addition to hunting mortality, there is no case to ban lead shot use. This argument rests on the traditional practice used for defining a harvestable level of surplus animals from some population (Leopold 1930), plus the assumption that some of those animals affected by lead exposure would have succumbed to natural mortality, i.e., compensatory mortality. This argument supposes that one can define accurately the population in question, a problem facing all ecologists (Krebs 1994). It begs the question of scale of population size and distribution: whether continental, national, international, regional, or local, and especially for migratory species. Members of migratory species may disperse and breed in diverse locations, but aggregate in geographically confined wintering locations, so defying population identification. Moreover, there is no scientifically agreed-upon consensus that intervention to prevent further poisoning of a wildlife species should begin only when evidence of risk is confirmed at some defined population, rather than the individual level. This is, therefore, an arbitrary criterion, devised to serve the interests of the pro-lead lobby. With passage of time and further lead deposition, all exposure becomes, inevitably, a wider population issue, however defined. Dispersed gunshot is available to be ingested by both game and non-game species. Twenty-two species of European waterbirds have been recorded to have ingested spent lead gunshot, eight of which are listed in the Birds Directive’s Annex 1 (CEC 1979). Lead poisoning is also about the health of individual animals.

Loss et al. (2012) reviewed the topic of human-caused mortality and impact on populations, and commented that:

Since direct mortality sources kill large numbers of birds and uncertainty is inherent in even the most sophisticated analytical approaches, we conclude by proposing that those making policy decisions based on mortality estimates and population assessments should consider adopting a precautionary approach.

Unintended losses of wildlife attend hunting due to the inefficiency of the hunting process. They arise from animals wounded and lost, and animals killed, but not retrieved. In the case of waterfowl hunting in North America, this loss (known as crippling losses) is large, often exceeding 20% of the actual retrieved kill (Norton and Thomas 1994). However, national waterfowl harvests have been adjusted to accommodate such losses that are regarded, by some, as the acceptable costs of inefficient waterfowl hunting. These losses generally exceed the reported rates of lead-induced mortality among North American waterfowl species, an argument used, again, to negate the need to ban use of lead shot for hunting in other jurisdictions. Thus, the criteria for regulating the use of potentially toxic lead ammunition differ when applied to wild species and humans. For humans, it is the individual and not the population that matters. It is simply that the health of individual humans is held in higher ethical and legal regard than the welfare of most wild species, and that lead-induced mortality among wildlife can be readily externalized to wild populations, regardless of scale. Lead exposure from spent ammunition is a humanly induced problem, but is also humanly preventable.

Regardless of the questionable validity of using population-level effects as the criterion warranting the transition to non-lead hunting ammunition, recent scientific evidence indicates that there are already significant impacts of lead-induced poisoning and subsequent mortality of birds at the national–international scale, including rare and globally threatened species. This is demonstrated in the endangerment of White-backed Vultures (Gyps africanus) in Botswana (Garbett et al. 2018), California Condors, and other scavenging birds in the continental USA (Golden et al. 2016). Different species of eagles have been shown to be seriously impacted by lead ammunition ingestion across the holarctic (Nadjafzadeh et al. 2013; Ecke et al. 2017; Ishii et al. 2017; Gil-Sánchez et al. 2018; Isomursu et al. 2018). Population-level declines in waterfowl wintering in the UK have been identified (Green and Pain 2016). Lead fishing weights have been identified in the toxicity and substantial population decline of Common Loons in the north-eastern part of their US range (Grade et al. 2018).

For several bird species, the issue of a putative population-level effect has now become a definite species-level effect. Kanstrup et al. (2018) identified international action plans for 23 species of birds where poisoning from lead ammunition was concluded to have negative impact on conservation. One example is Bewick’s Swan (Cygnus columbianus), an European migrant and wintering species listed in Annex I of the Birds Directive, thus requiring the designation of Special Protection Areas and proactive planning to ensure a favorable conservations status. Despite its being a protected species in every country within its international range, between 1995 and 2010 numbers of Bewick’s Swans in the flyway from arctic Russia to northern Europe declined from 29 000 to 18 000. Consequently, an array of conservation efforts has been established. This includes an International Single Species Action Plan under AEWA (Nagy et al. 2012), which is also supported by the Bern Convention’s Standing Committee (Rec. No. 165) and which calls for measures to reduce mortality from lead poisoning. Bewick’s Swan and other swan species are exposed to contamination by spent lead shot (Newth et al. 2013, 2016). In the North-west Europe flyway, lead ingestion was the cause of death in 14.6% of adults examined post mortem in the UK (Brown et al. 1992; Rees 2006). International efforts to improve the conservation status of this species are hindered by increased mortality, morbidity, and other impacts of sub-lethal contamination from lead shot.

The Spanish Imperial Eagle (Aquila adalberti) exists only in the Iberian Peninsula and is one of Europe’s most threatened birds of prey. Rodriguez-Ramos Fernandez et al. (2011) found that three birds of a sample of 84 (3.6%) had bone lead concentration > 20 μg/g. Lead concentrations in feathers were positively associated with the density of large game animals in the area where birds were found dead or injured. Death of adults of this K-selected species, even in small numbers, could impede the recovery of its small population (Pain et al. 2009). Rodriguez-Ramos Fernandez et al. (2011) concluded that the use of lead-free ammunition in upland hunting would reduce potential lead exposure to the Spanish Imperial Eagle and contribute to its recovery. A similar situation exists for the Andean Condor (Vultur gryphus), in which high levels of bone and blood lead indicate that the species is threatened at the continental level across South America (Wiemeyer et al. 2017).

Ferreya et al. (2015) indicated that serious sub-clinical effects of lead that may pre-dispose animals (waterfowl) to mortality are equally important to consider as observed mortality in favoring adoption of non-lead ammunition. Such an example is the deleterious effect of ingested lead on the immune response of birds (Vallverdú-Coll et al. 2015). The extent of sub-lethal effects and suffering of lead poisoned and dying animals has been little researched. There is, however, considerable expert knowledge that lead poisoning can seriously affect health and welfare, the pathological and clinical signs being consistent with causing severe and prolonged suffering. These considerations negate, further, the use of a population-level effect as a criterion for ending lead products’ use. Collectively, these studies implicate lead derived from gunshot, rifle bullets, and sinkers. As Reed and Blaustein (1997) commented:

Therefore determining biological significance a priori of a population decline is arbitrary – a political decision.

Availability, costs, and effectiveness of non-lead products

These three terms are often central to objections to banning use of lead products (Thomas 2015). Retail availability of any product is directly related to its public demand. Thus, a Catch-22 situation exists in which the ammunition makers are reluctant to invest in product development, production, marketing, and distribution unless there are assurances of public demand. The unpopular replacement of traditional lead products by novel lead substitutes requires regulation to ensure public demand, and thus, availability (Thomas 2015). The growing number of jurisdictions requiring use of non-toxic shot has resulted in most major ammunition makers offering lines of steel shot and other non-lead cartridges, so increasing availability (Thomas and Guitart 2010).

Prices of certain non-lead products reflect world prices of their principal ingredients (especially tungsten, tin, and bismuth). Prices also reflect consumer demand directly. Furthermore, prices may decline when economies of scale increase, and when increased demand spurs competition among manufacturers. Prices of non-lead products have not presented a barrier to participation in shooting and fishing sports (Kanstrup 2015). Steel shot cartridges may be as comparably priced as their high-quality lead shot cartridges of similar gauge and loads (Thomas 2015). The same general finding applies to non-lead and lead-core rifle ammunition (Thomas 2013). Moreover, the range of non-lead rifle cartridge calibers and bullet types made by North American and European companies satisfies the vast majority of hunters’ requirements (Thomas et al. 2016).

Since 1991, American and European hunters of waterfowl and upland game have shown that shotgun cartridges containing steel or other non-lead materials are highly effective when used competently and responsibly (Kanstrup 2015; Pierce et al. 2015). More recently, published field studies indicate that non-lead rifle ammunition is equally as effective as lead-core equivalents in killing game (Trinogga et al. 2013; Kanstrup et al. 2016b; McCann et al. 2016; Martin et al. 2017; McTee et al. 2017). These studies report on the killing of animals ranging in size from Columbian Ground Squirrels (Urocitellus columbianus), Roe Deer (Capreolus capreolus), Red Deer (Cervus elaphus), and Wild Boar (Sus scrofa) to American Elk (Cervus canadensis) taken by hunters under prevailing field conditions. What is limiting is the regulation requiring its wide-scale use. Widespread use of lead bullets to kill Australian wildlife poses significant threats to both wildlife and human health (Hampton et al. 2018). However, no regulatory initiatives are underway, despite the extensive evidence of potential exposure and availability of non-lead substitutes (Hampton et al. 2018).

Substitutes for lead sinkers are made from pure tin, stainless steel, tungsten-plastics, and bismuth-tin alloys, all of which are non-toxic to wildlife (Twiss and Thomas 1998). They are available for use in wet-fly fishing and as conventional sinkers, and their use in the UK has certainly contributed to reduced lead exposure and mortality in Mute Swans (Sears and Hunt 1991). It is not possible to assess their role in reducing lead exposure and mortality among piscivorous species in North America. This is because non-lead sinkers are required in only parts of the species’ annual migratory range, and continued use of lead sinkers outside those areas still poses risk to these species, especially Common Loons (Grade et al. 2018).

Regulatory limitations and inconsistencies

While repeated attempts to regulate bans on the use of lead ammunition have been made at the international level by the African Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS) of the United Nations Environment Programme (Kanstrup et al. 2018), none, to date, has succeeded. This is because it behooves any national or multinational Party (such as the European Union) to such an agreement or treaty to enact enabling legislation, but this has proven limiting. For migratory species, the primary consideration is protection of the flyways and the critical wintering grounds from lead exposure, so necessitating cooperation among all nations involved, especially those where the greatest risks of exposure exist. Clearly, this is where common and consistent regulation among countries that share migratory routes is required.

The issue of regulatory jurisdiction is central to understanding the capacity of laws to protect wildlife from lead exposure. Thomas and Guitart (2010) analyzed the legislation of the EU and the USA with regard to implementing bans on lead shot use, and indicated why the US federal law was able to effectively ban lead shot use for waterfowl hunting. However, while both the USA and Canada (under the Canada–USA Migratory Birds Treaty) have nationwide requirements for non-lead shot when hunting federally regulated waterfowl, such requirements still do not exist when hunting species controlled by individual state and provincial jurisdiction. Where such a jurisdiction does develop regulation to control lead ammunition use (e.g., California in 2019), there is no obligation for other or adjacent states to develop complementary regulation. As an example, California passed the Ridley-Tree Condor Preservation Act in 2007 requiring hunters to use non-lead ammunition when hunting in the California range of that species. However, Utah and Arizona also comprise part of that species’ range, but no complementary legislation still exists (Thomas 2009).

While regulatory progress has been made by some countries and jurisdictions within them, regulatory limitations and inconsistencies prevent a complete transition to non-lead products. Although California is the leading US state in regulating lead ammunition (both shotgun and rifle) use, under Assembly Bill 711, it does not apply to target shooting or sport fishing when due to take effect in 2019. Denmark, while banning trade in lead sinkers for fishing, and lead shot for hunting and target shooting, still allows use of lead rifle bullets. Because bullets are used to hunt large species of mammals, and those animals’ carcasses become human foods, this issue is of direct relevance to human health and its regulation. The five US states that regulate the use of non-lead fishing sinkers to protect piscivorous birds have different provisions for use, sale, and possession (Thomas 2019), so limiting their effectiveness. British regulations relate to non-lead shot use over wetlands and for hunting wildfowl, ostensibly to prevent lead exposure in wildfowl, but do not apply to adjacent uplands where many wildfowl feed. Separate UK legislation has been used to deal with lead sinkers in Mute Swan habitats and shot in wetlands, again reflecting the perceived disparate nature of the exposure. This disparate perception of the source of the problem, and the restricted regulation that sometimes follows, ultimately refers back to the sporting constituencies using the lead products. As an example, lead shot use in target shooting is regulated at the national level in few jurisdictions, despite the tonnage of lead it adds to environments each year (Thomas and Guitart 2013). These are only some of the inconsistencies to be found in the diverse legislation pertaining to lead ammunition and sinker use.

Passage of regulations assumes that provisions exist to enforce them. While such provision may well exist in North America, they are often absent in many European countries where hunting occurs mainly on private lands (Thomas and Guitart 2010). This has resulted in low compliance in the UK (Cromie et al. 2015). However, in Spanish wetland hunting, Mateo et al. (2014) reported marked compliance with non-lead shot regulations from 2007 to 2012 that resulted in reduced rates of lead shot ingestion in several species of common waterfowl. The Danish and Dutch regulation of sale, possession, and use of lead shot ammunition obviates this compliance problem. An in-depth examination of the regulations used by different governments would be a fruitful method to develop, and perhaps revise, legislation that serves better the needs of wildlife and the environment.

Impacts on human health

Animals killed with lead ammunition may contain fragments of lead that are ingested by humans who eat game. This represents the latest awareness of the impact of spent lead ammunition, whether the lead originates from shot or bullets, and especially among societies that consume large quantities of wild game, including avid hunters and aboriginal people (Bjerregaard et al. 2004; Hunt et al. 2009; Lindboe et al. 2012; Fachehoun et al. 2015; Green and Pain 2015; Juric et al. 2018). The greater the consumption of shot game, the greater is the level of lead exposure and its potential effects (Gerofke et al. 2018), especially upon pregnant women and their fetuses, and young children (WHO 2015).

The scientific interest in this aspect of lead exposure is increasing rapidly because of the human public health connection (Delahay and Spray 2015; Arnemo et al. 2016; Gerofke et al. 2018). In Europe, and other parts of the world where lead-killed game is sold legally, concern arises over the higher lead levels in retailed game meats (Morales et al. 2011; Vogt and Tysnes (2015) relative to permitted levels in domestically reared meats [European Commission threshold is 0.1 mg Pb/kg domesticated meat (Commission Regulation 2001)]. Lead ingested from the carcass of game animals used for human food, and in the discarded gut piles and non-retrieved game ingested by scavengers, afflict both alike. Thus, recent calls for the use of non-lead ammunition are now based on effects on both wildlife and humans (for example Hampton et al. 2018). It is interesting to note that use of non-lead ammunition to kill game eaten by humans would have an immediate effect in eliminating lead exposure in both humans and scavengers.

Public health agencies in a number of countries are aware of the contribution of ingested lead to humans, and advisories about eating lead-contaminated game exist. However, such advisories have yet to evolve into government policy and regulation of lead ammunition. It is vital to build the body of evidence about this source of food contamination, not least because venison is increasing in popularity among consumers. Lead-killed game meat is exported internationally, especially in Europe, so the local issue of ammunition use in hunting quickly becomes an international issue of food quality and health risks. This provides a newer approach to resolving the problem of lead shotgun and rifle ammunition use for game shooting.

Emphasizing the proven benefits of using non-lead products in policy development

In some regions where use of non-lead ammunition and fishing sinkers has been required, a growing body of evidence indicates that lead exposure and toxicity to wildlife is diminishing. This applies to continental waterfowl in the USA and Canada (Anderson et al. 2000; Samuel and Bowers 2000; Stevenson et al. 2005), waterfowl in Denmark and Spain (Mateo et al. 2014; Kanstrup 2019), avian scavengers in part of California (Kelly et al. 2011), and Mute Swans in the UK (Sears and Hunt 1991). In the USA, the Bald Eagle numbers have shown a progressive recovery, due both to the prohibition of harmful pesticides and the nationwide ban on lead ammunition since 1991 (Bedrosian et al. 2012; Eakle et al. 2015). Given the importance of such publications in supporting the case for using non-lead products, it is necessary to continue monitoring and reporting on trends in the prevalence of lead exposure in wildlife to demonstrate the efficacy of this practice. It is also important to emphasize and use this evidence of deliberate conservation of wild life that serves the interests of the hunting constituencies and is consistent with “sustainable hunting,” as defined by Kanstrup et al. (2018).

Conclusions

Two policy/regulatory approaches emerge to reduce lead exposure from hunting. One bans lead ammunition and lead sinker use in all of the habitats comprising international migratory bird flyways to protect the health of waterbirds. The other bans lead ammunition used to kill animals used for human food, which, if adopted, would quickly reduce dietary lead exposure in humans and scavengers. Both approaches are needed to address the single lead exposure issue. While there is redundancy in the two approaches, they are complementary, and apply across several of the hunting constituencies. As more jurisdictions (especially California in 2019) require use of non-lead ammunition, there is need for monitoring of the success of this management option, as it relates to the further development, availability, and use of non-lead products, their contribution to lower lead exposure and mortality, and their role in more sustainable hunting. The conservation successes that are already apparent from non-lead product use should be used more as the basis of policy and regulatory initiatives, as, for instance, in the current European REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals) initiative.2 Lowering lead exposure across all habitats of migratory bird flyways requires equal levels of regulatory participation among nations, and especially the harmonization of enforceable regulations. The benefit to human health from using non-lead ammunition to procure wild game food could be a novel and propitious avenue to banning lead shot and bullet use. If successful, this approach would assist the international sales of “lead-free” game meat, while simultaneously reducing the incidence of lead ingestion in humans and among different species of scavengers. The existing array of non-lead ammunition and sinker products that could replace lead is not limiting. It is the socio-politically contrived resistance to their use that has to be overcome.

Biographies

Vernon G. Thomas

is a Professor Emeritus specializing in the transfer of scientific knowledge to conservation policy and law, especially in the issue of lead exposure and toxicity in wildlife and humans.

Niels Kanstrup

is a biologist, scientist, and hunter. His research program in focused on sustainability of hunting with emphasis on dispersal of ammunition components in the natural environment, particularly the impact of ammunition lead.

Anthony D. Fox

is a Professor of Waterbird Ecology at Aarhus University. His research focuses on applied waterbird issues throughout the northern hemisphere.