Introduction

Lead from hunting ammunition puts at risk the health of wildlife and of humans who regularly consume hunted game. Waterbirds ingest shot along with grit and their food. Ingested shot are often retained in the gizzard, which causes poisoning. For this reason, lead gunshot have been subject to legislative and other forms of regulation under international and national law over the last 50 years, especially for the protection of waterbirds and their wetland habitats. To date, 33 countries worldwide (Stroud 2015) have introduced total or partial bans on the use of lead shot for hunting, generating substantial experience from different jurisdictions. Denmark was the first European country to ban lead shot for hunting and target shooting completely, based on initial regulation in the early 1980s, with a total phase-out in 1996.

In Denmark, initial evidence that lead shot from shotgun ammunition was poisoning birds came in the late 1960s and mid-1970s, when studies showed Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) and (one) Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) dying from lead poisoning by gunshot ingestion (Munch 1968), and severe poisoning of Mute Swans (Cygnus olor) ingesting lead shot from nearby target shooting ranges (Clausen and Wolstrup 1979). These cases drew the attention of environmental authorities, who drafted proposals to regulate its use for target shooting, which contributed lead shot to wetlands. In Denmark at that time, most small target shooting ranges were owned or administrated by local shooting clubs, who protested against the proposed regulation. The two arguments from the shooting community against regulation revolved around lack of proof of the risk of lead shot in wetlands and lack of alternatives to lead ammunition. Despite these arguments, the first regulation was implemented in 1981, banning clay target shooting where lead shot could fall into wetlands.Footnote 1

At the same time, growing evidence and concern from conservationists that lead shot from hunting was poisoning waterbirds came from the high prevalence of ingested shot in waterbirds and high densities of lead shot in wetland sediments (Wium-Andersen 1973; Wium-Andersen and Franzmann 1974; Meltofte and Petersen 1979; Eskildsen 1980), supported by evidence from abroad, not least from USA where the problem had been identified in the 1950s (Bellrose 1959). Consequently, during 1983–1985, proposals to regulate lead shot for hunting included a 3-year “experimental ban” of lead shot at eight Danish wetlands subject to intensive waterbird hunting, and legislation based on hunting particular waterbird species.

During the subsequent implementation of lead shot regulation, Denmark social-democratic government (until December 1981) was followed by a conservative/liberal minority government (September 1982–December 1990). However, Parliament throughout was characterized by a so-called “green majority”, an alliance of left-wing opposition parties that implemented several environmental protection initiatives outside of government. This was to play a significant role in the process of phasing out lead shot for hunting. The Environmental Protection Agency (Ministry of Environment) was responsible for implementing regulation, even though wildlife management and hunting legislation was (until 1989) under the administration of the Ministry of Agriculture. Non-governmental stakeholders were primarily the three hunters’ organizations, Dansk Jagtforening, Landsjagtforeningen af 1923, and the smaller Dansk Strandjagtforening. In addition, conservationist organizations like Dansk Ornitologisk Forening (the Danish Ornithological Society/Birdlife Denmark) and some of their more vocal members and other active individuals played a central and active role in promoting regulation.

By mid-1985, consensus between hunters’ representatives and the authorities effected a time-limited experimental ban on lead shot for hunting at eight wetlands. However, in December 1985 Parliament decided to ban the use of lead shot in all Danish Ramsar sites (then 26) and on ponds used for captive-reared Mallard hunting. This was orchestrated by conservationist groups and pushed forward by the “green majority” in Parliament. The ban was effective from 1986 until 1993, when it was replaced by a regulation banning all hunting use of lead shot and the trade of lead shot cartridges (although only enforceable in forests and trading from 1996). Since then, the regulation has been amended slightly so the present regulationFootnote 2 bans the use, trade, and possession of cartridges with lead shot for all hunting and clay target shooting.

The total ban was not motivated by evidence of a significant risk of lead poisoning to non-wetland species, but by the need to enforce the regulation efficiently. Regulations related to specific habitats such as Ramsar sites were highly inefficient as enforcement required intensive policing of individual hunters’ use of non-lead shot types (Dansk Jagt 1987). However, the total phase-out of lead shot coincided with a broader national strategy to phase out all lead compounds in the environment wherever possible.

In summary, from initial concerns that shotgun ammunition lead shot was poisoning wildlife in Denmark 40 years ago, legislation restricting its use has now prevailed for more than 30 years, including the last 23 years of a total ban on the use, trade, and possession of lead shot. This paper reviews the Danish process by documenting its history, success, and pitfalls, to make the Danish experiences accessible to other countries, authorities, and stakeholders who face nature management challenges implementing similar change. The paper specifically addresses the following questions. What were stakeholders’ concerns and how were they managed? What characterized the discourse at user level and did the discourse change? Has regulation limited the opportunities for recreational hunting, the capacity of hunters to sustain their harvest, and the control of pest species? Has regulation achieved conservation benefits (in terms of reduced levels of lead poisoning), which was the original purpose of the process?

Methods

The magazines published by and associated with the three hunters’ organizations during the 1978–1992 transition period were reviewed to assess the general discourse, the political reactions within the hunter community, and to identify their primary concerns and attitudes during the phase-out of lead shot for hunting in Denmark. During this 15-year period, 352 individual editions of the hunters’ magazines were published, of which 345 were provided from library archives and their content reviewed. For each of the articles, which mention directly or indirectly the subjects of lead poisoning from gunshot, possible regulation of lead shot, and the introduction of alternative shot types, the following subject variables were extracted:

Time of publication

  • Year.

  • Month.

Type

  • Editorial article.

  • Information.

  • Report from annual meetings in the associated organizations.

  • Tests of non-lead products.

  • Readers’ letters.

Subject

  • Politics.

  • Legislation.

  • Lead poisoning.

  • Challenges relating to lead alternatives:

    • Efficacy.

    • Safety.

    • Firearms/technique.

    • Costs/price.

Attitude to change

  • Negative.

  • Neutral.

  • Positive.

Because of the large numbers of articles, it was not feasible to carry out a detailed discourse analysis. Categorization of articles was based on a judgement of the choice of words, themes, and narratives in the single articles. Narratives were used to assess of attitude to change. Many authors raised concrete concerns and sought more information. This would result in a categorization as “neutral”. Only articles concluding clear opposition to change was categorized as “negative”, and conversely, articles concluding support for change were assigned to the “positive” category. The analysis was used to identify concerns and to evaluate any change from resistance to acceptance and the reasons given.

From the categorization and quantification of article subjects, the importance of the many different concerns that were raised during the transition period was assessed. Categorization, quantification, and assessments were carried out by one person (the author).

The probability that the attitude did not change with year (null hypothesis) by assigning the attitude for each article as negative, neutral, or positive was modelled. The generalized linear model assumed a multinomial distribution with publication year as the independent variable and attitude as the dependent variable. The statistical test was conducted using proc genmod in SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).

Results

During 1978–1992, 210 articles in the three magazines covered the issue of regulation of lead shot which grew to peak in 1986, falling subsequently (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

During 1978–1992, 210 articles covered the issue of regulating the use of lead shot for hunting and clay target shooting in Denmark. The first regulation of lead shot for clay pigeon shooting which came into force in 1981 did not generate much reaction. The regulation of lead shot for hunting was negotiated in the years 1984–1985, was passed in late 1985, came into force on 1 August 1986, and caused a heavy written response. The total ban on lead shot for all hunting and clay target shooting (prepared during 1991–1992) received little attention in any of the magazines during this period

Full size image

The main concern expressed in 69 articles was the lack of suitable alternatives to lead shot. At that time, only American-made steel shot (until 1986) was available in Denmark. Many hunters were concerned about efficacy (27 articles), human safety (17 articles), damage to guns (16 articles), price of cartridges (9 articles), and damage to forests (5 articles). Thirty-three articles posed legislative/regulatory questions, of which six related to law enforcement, compliance, and control of regulations. The risk of lead poisoning to waterbirds was covered in 41 articles, in four cases by scientists or governmental representatives reporting documented evidence. However, in 27 articles the lead poisoning risk was ignored by hunters’ representatives, magazine editors, editorial articles (9), and readers’ letters. Fifty-five articles described the political process, e.g. the procedure in Parliament, the negotiation processes, or adopted strategies. Of these, 12 articles included personal attacks on scientists, officials, or individual persons in other organizations including other hunters’ organizations (9 articles). Ten articles were concerned about the consequences of lead shot regulation for future clay target shooting. Table 1 shows the distribution of the different types of articles.

Table 1 Types of articles of which “Information” was the most common
Full size table

Most articles fell within the category “Information”, i.e. updates on new developments, legislation, and products. However, the frequency of editorial articles, readers’ letters and reports from annual meeting/general assemblies (total 105) demonstrates the concern of stakeholders about lead shot regulation and the desire to retain the status quo relative to the rather few tests of alternatives to lead shot products (15).

However, there were shifts in attitude, i.e. whether authors expressed negative, neutral, or positive attitudes to the subject of transition from lead shot to alternative shot types (Fig. 2). The grouping resulted in 75 negative attitudes, 104 neutral attitudes, and 30 positive attitudes. The attitude changed significantly over the observation period (generalized linear model χ2 = 47.7, p < 0.001, slope = − 0.344). The significant negative slope indicates that the number of negative attitudes declined and the number of positive attitudes increased during the transition period.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Distribution of 210 articles on year and categorization of attitudes to change from lead shot to non-lead shot during the transition period 1978–1992. The attitude changed significantly over the observation period (generalized linear model χ2 = 47.7, p < 0.001, slope = − 0.344)

Full size image

This shift in attitudes was expressed, for instance, when the President of the organization Landsjagtforeningen af 1923 concluded in a May 1989 article in the magazine Dansk Jagt, published by the competing organization Dansk Jagtforening, that the steel shot then available was fully acceptable for all hunting and clay target shooting, stating:

Without hesitation, I urge everyone to use steel shot as far as possible - not just where lead shot is banned, but everywhere you go hunting and shooting clay targets. The hunters’ credibility as environmentalists depends on how we keep our own house in order.

The article was published with the support of the organization Dansk Jagtforening, and it demonstrated a change in leadership attitude, recognizing the need for hunters to publicly address and engage with the lead shot issue. Furthermore, it became a turning point in terms of both the attitude to the phase-out of lead shot and cooperation among three hunters’ organizations that merged 3 years later. Another sign of changing attitudes was a report from the 1988 general assembly of Landsjagtforeningen af 1923 published in the magazine Jagt and Fiskeri under the head line: “A stable period without any big problems”, which failed to mention the 1986 lead shot regulation at all. Finally, the total ban on lead shot for all hunting and clay target shooting in 1993 (prepared during 1991–1992) received almost no attention in any of the magazines during this period.

Discussion

To fully understand the lessons learned from the Danish phase-out of lead shot from the 1980s until the present, it is important to know the level of respect and compliance from Danish hunters to the regulations. Five hunters’ magazine articles reviewed in this study reported that compliance was far from complete in the first years following regulation, based on regular police checks and other observations. Even after the 1996 complete ban on use, trade, and possession of lead shot in Denmark, examples of non-compliance were forthcoming. Police checks from October 2010 until January 2011 revealed that hunters still used lead shot (Politiken 2011). Kanstrup (2012) demonstrated that 15.6% of Pheasant gizzards (N = 77) and 9.6% of Mallard gizzards (N = 94) from Danish shoots in 2010 had embedded lead shot. As of 2018, however, compliance with lead shot regulations in Denmark is almost complete (Kanstrup, unpublished data).

From resistance to acceptance

From the beginning, Danish hunters’ and their organizations were negative and skeptical of the proposed regulation of lead shot both for clay target shooting and, in particular, hunting. Resistance to change was driven by concerns about performance and safety associated with the use of non-lead shot and an under-appreciation of the true extent of poisoning of waterbirds and ecosystems from lead gun shot. These misperceptions were stimulated by lack of responsible organizational leadership at the time. Issues of trust and tension between field sports and conservation communities and inter-organizational politics became major factors to frustrate change, as has also subsequently been described in the UK (Cromie et al. 2015).

However, during the transition period, attitudes changed significantly. This owed much to a combination of improved availability of suitable alternative shot types and, in particular, a change in the opinions of hunters, resulting from a more proactive leadership and the positive results forthcoming from the hunters’ own testing of new non-lead products. These studies demonstrated that shooting efficacy is more related to hunters’ experience and the distance over which they shoot, than to cartridge performance (Kanstrup 1987). Indeed, cartridge performance was shown to be largely independent of the shot material itself. The early (1981) introduction of steel shot for clay target shooting prompted many Danish hunters to rapidly acquire experience of firing many non-lead rounds. The general impression was that there was little difference in terms of hitting probability, safety, and price. The price of non-lead cartridges was a major concern in the transition period, mentioned in 9 of the magazines reviewed in this study. Today, sport shooting cartridges with steel shot are cheaper than lead shot equivalents and are preferred by some top competition shooters (Bjergegaard, 2018, Danish shooting instructor, personal communication, http://www.skydeinstruktion.dk). Steel shot cartridges for hunting purposes are available at the same price as lead shot cartridges, whereas other non-lead types, like bismuth and tungsten shot, cost significantly more.

The change of attitude among Danish hunters was manifested clearly in 2015, when the Norwegian Parliament decided to lift the total ban on lead shot for hunting (which had been enacted there in 2005) and allowed use of lead shot for hunting non-waterbird species. The Danish Hunters’ Association expressed the following reaction to the Norwegian decisionFootnote 3:

The Board of the Danish Hunters’ Association has, on top of the Norwegian decision, discussed whether we should work on something similar in Denmark. We all agreed that we should not. There are a number of underlying considerations: Now we have become accustomed to using steel as well as the other alternatives, and steel strikes just as good if not better than lead. …and no matter how you look at it: lead is bad to cast out in nature - even in small quantities. It is hard to see that Norway should have found “the philosopher’s Stone” and we wonder a little bit about the decision. We cannot see any good arguments and therefore we are not going to work for anything like it.

The Danish situation is mirrored in The Netherlands, where, since 1993, there has been a complete ban on lead shot for all hunting. This regulation was implemented in response to growing awareness of lead shot contamination of waterbirds on a flyway level and the particularly high prevalence of ingested shot in Dutch waterbird populations (e.g. Lumeij et al. 1989). The Royal Dutch Hunters Association summarized the lessons learned as follows (2017, personal communication, https://www.jagersvereniging.nl/):

From the beginning, hunters were very skeptical, mostly due to lack of suitable alternative shot types. The first generations of non-lead shot types were of low quality, and many hunters had bad experiences. Later generations of alternative types showed to be more efficient. Today, steel shot is the most widespread type, but many hunters use bismuth shot. There are examples of hunters bringing steel shot to the UK when going there for Pheasant shooting. Old generations of hunters have adapted to the use of lead-free shot. New generations have never used lead shot. The shot ammunition is not an issue. Nobody complains about the situation, and there is no movement at all in order to question the regulation, alternatively, to lift the ban. The harvest of certain waterbird species, e.g. geese, is larger than ever.

Efficacy of non-lead ammunition

One of the major concerns in the transition period was the risk of non-lead shot being less efficient than lead shot (mentioned in 27 articles). Cromie et al. (2015) also found that concern about the efficacy and costs of non-toxic ammunition was the most prevalent themes, accounting for 20 of 131 (15.3%) opinions cited in a survey of the British hunting media during 2010–2015. Generally, lead has been believed to be the best metal for ammunition, due to its ubiquity, density, and softness. However, the preference for lead gunshot is more likely the result of tradition shaping demand and subsequent economies of scale relating to commercial production, than any true ballistic advantage to the use of the material. The transition from lead to other shot types should therefore not only discuss the efficacy of lead-free shot, but also address to which degree this transition can improve the efficacy of shotgun hunting in general and lead to better performance and reduced crippling rates that are consistent with the modern demands of sustainable hunting.

Comparative studies of the efficacy of lead versus non-lead shot are extensive. Among the early Danish studies, Hartmann (1982) concluded that “… modern technique causes a concurrent development that even out the differences between lead and steel in such a degree that steel shot within normal shooting distances (max. 35 m) are suitable for waterbird hunting”. Kanstrup (1987) found no difference in efficacy between lead and steel shot for Eider Duck (Somateria mollissima) hunting. Strandgaard (1993) concluded that steel shot was just as effective as lead shot when used to kill roe deer (Capreolus capreolus). According to Noer et al. (1996), 36% of a sample of Pink-footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) were found to carry embedded pellets (crippling rate) corresponding to one bird wounded for every bird shot and killed. Most examined birds had been wounded before the Danish phase-out of lead shot, so embedded shot was mostly lead. The results created a political furore and immediate calls for actions to reduce wounding. An action plan drafted by the Wildlife Management Council in 1997Footnote 4 included a programme to monitor the impact of the actions, and monitoring results were reported regularly. The latest evaluation of the impact of the campaign showed a reduction in the crippling ratio (crippling rate/harvest rate) for Pink-footed Goose from 9.75 in 1992 to 1.99 in 2016, a reduction of 80% (Clausen et al. 2017). This research coincided with the phasing out of lead shot and “phase-in” of steel shot in Denmark, but also with the increase in the Pink-footed Goose population size and associated annual kill, better organization and planning of hunting, combined with education of hunters.

European and American studies support these findings. Mondain-Monval et al. (2015) showed similar performance of lead and steel for hunting waterfowl. The study showed that hunter behaviour and judgement, the abundance of birds, and strong wind conditions played significant major roles in determining the hunters’ ability to kill birds. Pierce et al. (2014) compared lead and steel shot for hunting Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), showing hunters using lead shot (cal. 12, with 32 g of US #71/2 shot) and steel shot (cal. 12, with 28 g of US#6 and US#7 shot) produced the same results in terms of birds killed per shot, wounded per shot, wounded per hit, and brought to bag per shot. Hunters in this double-blind study wounded 14% of targeted birds with lead shot, and 15.5 and 13.9% with #7 and #6 steel shot, respectively. Hunters missed birds at the rate of 65% with lead shot, and 60.5 and 63.6% with #7 and #6 steel shot, respectively. Pierce et al. (2014) concluded that “… (shot) pattern density becomes the primary factor influencing ammunition performance”.

In summary, shot material plays a secondary role in shot performance. The right choice of shot sizes, shooting distances, and cartridge quality, i.e. sufficient energy and conformity of components, play a more important role. Furthermore, shooting efficacy and the success of the shot are related to the shooter rather than the ammunition, though shooters may need to adapt to using different ammunition. Steel and other alternatives can be used as effectively as lead shot (Thomas et al. 2015).

Safety and damage to guns

Safety, mentioned in 16 articles in this study, was a central part of the Danish debate during the transition from lead to non-lead gunshot in the 1990s. Many were concerned that steel shot, which was initially the only available alternative, would create an increase in accidents caused primarily by ricocheting shot. For this reason, a suite of measures was introduced. Codes of safe hunting were adopted, including the recommended safe shooting angle be increased from 25° to 40°, and hunters were advised to wear safety glasses when hunting in groups. A safety campaign was also launched (under the motto “better red than dead”) urging hunters to wear red caps or hat ribbons to enhance their visibility to fellow hunters, a campaign inspired by the switch from lead to lead-free shot. Two decades later, there is no evidence that the transition from lead to non-lead shot has changed the risk of injury. The Danish Hunting InsuranceFootnote 5 company registers reports on shooting accidents, including accidents caused by ricocheting gunshot which show that, following the phase-out of lead shot, there was no increase in the frequency of such accidents.

Since 1981, the use of lead shot for training and competitive clay target shooting has gradually been phased out in Denmark and steel shot has become the only realistic alternative. Steel shot was predicted to generate increased risk of accidents caused by shot ricocheting from clay targets, installations, ground (running target), and other objects. However, 38 years after the first regulations were enacted there has been no detectable change in the frequency of such accidents, neither generally, nor accidents caused by ricocheting shot (Danish Wing Shooting Organisation, 2016, personal communication, http://www.danskflugtskydningsforbund.dk/). So, this initial concern has proved groundless. Shooters are recommended to wear safety glasses (in some disciplines this is mandatory). This precaution is to prevent eye injuries mainly from clay target fragments but will also protect against both falling and ricocheting shot. This applies equally to steel and other shot types.

The suitability of guns and the risk of damage caused by steel was a major concern during the transition period, as mentioned in 16 articles. Part of the governmental and private campaign to support the phase-out of lead shot was to recommend (and facilitate) hunters to get their guns re-proofed and checked. In most cases the guns passed the proofing. In other cases, hunters replaced their gun(s). In many cases, tightly choked guns were opened to pattern better with the available ammunition. Today, most experts regard these modifications as un-necessary as the development of lead-free ammunition went much faster than expected, not least supported by European (including Danish) ammunition manufacturers who started production of specifically types for Danish conditions. During the late 1980s and early 1990s when the decision to enact a total ban of lead shot was taken (and came into force in 1996), the debate on guns was silenced as the predicted damage to guns (explosions, etc.) caused by non-lead ammunition never realized. Also, new shot types based on bismuth and tungsten sharing similar ballistic properties as lead shot (including use with old shotguns) fulfilled the needs of the hunters.

Hunting in forests

When the ban on lead shot for hunting in forests was introduced in 1996, the Danish Forest Association and Danish Tree Industries introduced a non-statutory requirement for the use of specially approved “forest shot”, mostly bismuth–tin shot for hunting in forests. This requirement was due to the risk that steel gunshot shot into trees might damage cutting tools in the timber industry. Although addressed in only five articles in hunting magazines during the transition period, the concern was covered by non-hunting media (e.g. Bach and Thomsen 1992). Based on questionnaires and interviews with key stakeholders at all levels, from production to processing of wood, Kanstrup and Stenkjær (2015) showed that a large proportion forest districts complied with this requirement from the beginning, although an increasing number have waived it in recent years. These authors found no examples of actual economic loss as a result of damage caused by unapproved (steel) hunting shot. This is either because such shot has not been used at any significant level or because the risk of non-approved shot causing damage to tree cutting tools is infinitesimally small. Shot is often detected in the inspection of wood or prior to processing with delicate cutting tools. Kanstrup and Stenkjær (2015) assessed the annual added cost for using forest shot instead of steel shot at approximately Euro 2 million, which corresponds to at least five times the total value of the annual production of veneer timber in Denmark.

Today, the regulation of gunshot for forest hunting has changed so that concern for timber production is met through targeted district-based requirements in areas with particularly valuable timber production (effectively only beech and oak produced for veneer production). Effective organization of hunting can ensure that reforesting and single high-value trees are not affected by hunting ammunition.

Conservation benefits from using non-lead shot

The primary goal of regulating lead shot for hunting in wetlands in Denmark and other countries was to prevent contamination of waterbirds and their environment. So, has such regulation reduced lead exposure and poisoning of waterbirds in Denmark and elsewhere?

There are very few Danish studies of the actual conservation benefits of the regulation. Kanstrup (2012) showed a 1.2% prevalence of ingested lead shot in Mallard gizzards (N = 656) obtained in 2010, significantly lower than in historical Danish and European studies (Clausen and Wolstrup 1979; Meltofte and Petersen 1979; Lumeij et al. 1989). Lead shot was found in 13.6% of Mallard gizzards with ingested shot (N = 59) compared to 54.2% steel and 32.2% bismuth, demonstrating ingestion of lead shot in 2010 has been replaced by ingestion of alternative, non-toxic shot types. In a sample (N = 690) of Mallard gizzards obtained in 2017, ingested lead shot prevalence ranged from 0 to 11.8% with an average of 1.7% in 14 different batches of shot Mallard from 10 different shooting districts (Kanstrup, unpublished data). This compared with 0–16.0% (average 8.9%) for steel and 0–4.0% (0.7%) for bismuth.

This evidence of the potential benefits of the switch to non-lead gunshot is mirrored in foreign studies. In the USA and Canada, the mandatory transition to non-toxic shot for waterbird hunting in 1991 and 1999, respectively, resulted in significant reductions in duck mortality from lead poisoning within a few years (Anderson et al. 2000; Samuel and Bowers 2000; Stevenson et al. 2005). Spain required the use of non-toxic shot for hunting in its Ramsar sites from 2001, since the time when a measurable reduction in lead-induced mortality has occurred (Mateo et al. 2014). Between 1995 and 2005, a lead shot ban was self-imposed at 403 ha wetlands at the Tour du Valat Foundation estate in the Camargue, France (Mondain-Monval et al. 2015). Analysis of the gizzards of ducks showed that at the end of the 11-year period, the lead shot ban prevented 456 kg of lead from entering 403 ha of temporary marshes and avoided the contamination of 8% of the ducks foraging at Tour du Valat. These studies show that the scale of the problem can be reduced quickly by switching to non-toxic ammunition. However, once lead shot is dispersed into the upper levels of wetland sediments it remains a potential future source of poisoning to wildlife and ecosystems because of its chemical and physical persistence.

Future perspectives

The Danish process of phasing out lead shot for hunting and target shooting has enhanced the sustainability of field and shooting sports in terms of conservation of wildlife and ecosystems. By this regulation and by banning also the trade of lead based sport fishing weights in 2002, Denmark has become a global leader in hunting/angling lead reduction. However, other issues revolve around the environmental footprint of these recreational activities. Lead in rifle ammunition is still unregulated in Denmark, despite the well-established fact that exposure to lead fragments from rifle hunting bullets poses toxic risks to wildlife and humans, who are at risk when eating game meat killed with lead ammunition (Kanstrup et al. 2016). Plastic shotgun ammunition cases and wads which feature among the top 10 litter items found on reference beaches in Denmark are an unwelcome source of plastic pollution of marine and other ecosystems (Kanstrup and Balsby 2018). Non-toxic rifle ammunition is widely available, and the rapid development of non-plastic shot gun cartridge components could be stimulated by a more pronounced market demand.

Lessons learned from the Danish phase-out of lead shot in the 1980s and 1990s could be instructional not only for other countries facing the same challenge but also for Denmark itself in order to further reduce the adverse environmental footprints from recreational hunting and thereby enhance its long-term sustainability.

Conclusions

Although the progress towards eliminating lead shot from use in hunting has been slow, the results in Denmark have been important and long-lasting. Positive experiences from the use of non-lead ammunition are increasingly available from more countries that have enforced regulations for three decades, including North America countries, The Netherlands, Spain, and France. Most Danish hunters were initially negative and skeptical towards the change. This was due to biased information about the actual environmental consequences of firing lead shot into wetlands, postulated (but unfounded) damage to guns caused by non-lead shot, poor killing impact, safety issues, and high prices of non-lead products. Resistance to change was driven by these concerns, combined with tensions between hunting and conservation communities and lack of organizational leadership. The legal progress was ensured by a firm parliamentary regulatory process stimulated particularly by a forceful approach from a “green” opposition and strong conservationists, both organized and individuals, who influenced the government of the time.

Within a few years of the first regulations coming into force, hunters and their organizations changed their attitude towards the regulation, becoming positive and constructive. This was driven by a wider understanding of the risks of dispersed of lead shot in ecosystems. The introduction of new generations of shot types manufactured of non-lead alternatives from a growing number of manufacturers increased hunters’ confidence that the transition from lead to non-lead shot could occur without jeopardizing shooting performance and safety, and without reducing personal harvest rates or increasing cartridge consumption. The early introduction of steel shot for clay target shooting exposed many hunters to good training experiences. Contrary to some hunters’ fears, change was not an obstruction to continued hunting opportunity (Kanstrup 2015). On the contrary, it is believed that the valuable public image of hunters visibly seen to be reducing the dispersal of a recognized contaminant poison (i.e. lead) into the environment has been of paramount importance for the long-term political sustainability of hunting (Kanstrup et al. 2018).

It is well documented that the effective transition to non-toxic ammunition quickly reduces the level of poisoning in wild birds. However, it is easy to ignore lead ammunition’s toxic legacy and the long-term persistence of lead shot in ecosystems. These historical residues constitute a persistent and significant toxic threat to wildlife and the reputation of hunting. The single take-home lesson from the Danish and other experiences is that it takes the initiative of active conservationist groups and a responsible public authority with statutory powers to change mindsets in the wider public interest, no matter how unpopular, and to encourage all affected stakeholders to support the process in resolving this major environmental problem.

Lessons learned from the Danish process could be instructive to other countries facing the same challenge at different stages of the process, but also to Denmark in further reducing the adverse environmental footprints of recreational hunting and thereby enhancing its long-term sustainability.