7. ESSAY

Niels Kanstrup, Director of the Danish Hunters’ Association, Kalø, Denmark:

An issue of international importance

“The lead poisoning issue has many international aspects. Firstly, many of the species that are affected are migratory waterbirds that cross several borders during migration. The impact of management – for example regarding lead shot – in one country might affect the flyway situation and so be of importance to all range states. Secondly, the question of lead shot is also a question of hunters’ image. The public opinion in one country will have an impact in other countries, so both the hunters’ and national administration will benefit from international co-ordination and exchange of knowledge. Finally, a focal point in phasing out lead shot is making alternatives available. This is an international affair: research and development of alternatives and analysis of the market for sale of alternatives is facilitated by international co-operation.

There are several reasons why addressing the lead shot issue is so difficult. The problem of lead poisoning of wildlife is not very obvious. Many hunters will claim – correctly – that “they never found a poisoned bird”. The die-offs are still regarded by many hunters and their organisations as very small-scale or negligible. At the same time many hunters are very sceptical to any alternative, not because hunters necessarily have any factual experience, but because “they always used lead”. In other words, hunters are conservative, and often this is combined with a widespread and well-organised propaganda against alternatives – often based on commercial interests. 

Learning by doing

In many countries the authorities have introduced a phase-out of lead shot. The resistance is often seen to come from the industry and organisations representing hunters and clay pigeon shooters. In Denmark the first real progress was seen when hunters tried to use alternatives (steel was the only option at that time) themselves, when the first regulation came into force in 1985. Studies carried out by the hunters’ association showed that the lethality of steel shot was comparable to that of lead. Introduction of steel shot for clay pigeon shooting made many hunters realize that steel cartridges were not at all dangerous to fire, and the price of cartridges was still acceptable. Practical use of alternatives showed people that all the rumours about exploding guns, crippled game, high prices etc. were really only rumours. Therefore, in my opinion the key solution is ‘learning by doing’, and any central approach needed for pushing things in the right direction should respect the users and their observations.

Denmark is not typical as we chose a total ban on the use of lead shot – including all hunting and all clay pigeon shooting, the latter still with a few exceptions. Banning lead shot for shooting in forests caused a new problem, as steel is not accepted by foresters due to its hardness and risk of damage to machinery used in the timber industry. This situation put pressure on the development of soft alternatives: bismuth, tungsten products, tin etc. These have shown to be rather popular although the prices of these cartridges are significantly higher than prices of lead and steel.

The Danish experience 

Many Danish hunters feared (and some conservationists hoped!) that the phasing out of lead shot would mean phasing out of hunting altogether. Seventeen years of experience have shown that this never became a reality. Neither the number of hunters nor the annual bag changed significantly. The first main worry – the risk of guns exploding or being damaged by steel shot – showed to be unnecessary. Also, the lethality of alternative shot has been investigated in several scientific and more popular programmes, the result showing that lethality is connected to hunters’ behaviour (shooting distances) more than to the performance of the cartridge.

Lead is still regarded as an ideal material due to its ballistic qualities, but there have been many examples of lead shot cartridges being much poorer than cartridges with alternative shot materials. In other words: efficiency of a type of shot is a question of cartridge quality more than shot material. The phasing out of lead has put a focus on lethality. Steel shot has to some degree taught hunters to be more cautious by shortening the shooting distances. This has caused an increase in the total efficiency of the shot, as shortening of distances will increase the hitting probability markedly. In Denmark during the past five years there has been a focus on crippling rates, but without actual connection to the phasing out of lead shot.

From the moment hunters got acquainted with steel shot – both for hunting and clay pigeon shooting – the process got the right momentum. Before then, many were very sceptical and the question caused many fights, both within the hunters’ community and outside of it. The success seems to be rather clear although there is some evidence that lead is still used illegally to some rather limited degree. Today, hunters are not complaining (at least not about this particular problem!), although many still do not see the logic behind the total ban of lead, also in upland hunting. 

Hunter and conservationist at the same time

Honestly, I do not care very much what shot I use. To shoot geese, heavy sea ducks, foxes etc. I always choose high performance shot – mostly steel shot size 3,5 mm to 4 mm. For smaller game species I will use any alternative with a standard load (28 gram). In general, I am more aware of shooting distances than before, and today I keep monitoring the number of shot used per bagged animal, which should always be somewhat below 3. I have absolutely no worry concerning damage to my gun or risk of explosion. Concerning security I am aware of the higher risk of ricochets from hard shot (mostly steel), although this has caused no increase in numbers of hunting accidents in Denmark.  In areas where you might hit hard surfaces (ground, stones, trees) I would normally use soft shot.

Having observed the phasing out of lead shot in Denmark during the last fifteen years I have listened to – and taken part in – a lot of discussions. My role has been split – the authorities regard me (correctly) as a hunters’ representative and the hunters often regard me as a useless conservationist. The authorities have been quite firm, but they have also been willing to listen to the hunters and their organisations. The total ban on the use of lead shot has been implemented in several steps, giving room for development and giving the hunters a chance to adapt to the new situation. On the other hand hunters have also been open and willing to take up the challenge, mostly with the overall motive of manifesting a good image of hunters being a responsible partner in modern nature management. Looking back, the process has absolutely been a case of ‘win-win’.

A piece of advice… 

My advice for hunters who are reluctant to a switch, would be: Try the alternatives yourself! As for governments: Take the hunters seriously. They are the main stakeholders. Keep a firm line, but leave some of the responsibility to hunters. Look at the experiences in other countries, but accept the need of local hunters to take part in the awareness building.

The Danish example of banning all use of lead for hunting seems to be too ambitious for most other countries. To many of them, hunting-related lead poisoning is a rather limited problem compared to general conservation needs. Hopefully, the first priority will be to safeguard the existence of ecosystems such as wetlands, in this case by addressing general problems regarding wetlands and waterbird management. In certain countries this is a challenge per se. In countries having the surplus to do more, there should be a focus on reducing all pollution, including lead deposition. To address the problem worldwide there is a clear need of a constructive dialogue on a national and international level between governments, nature conservationists and hunters. Such co-operation is a precondition to maintain the momentum of the process of phasing out lead shot in wetlands.”

Back to the Introduction Page on on Lead Poisoning