Hunting of roe deer and wild boar in Germany: Is non-lead ammunition suitable for hunting?

Lead poisoning of raptors: state of the science and cross-discipline mitigation options for a global problem

Lead poisoning is an important global conservation problem for many species of wildlife, especially raptors. Despite the increasing number of individual studies and regional reviews of lead poisoning of raptors, it has been over a decade since this information has been compiled into a comprehensive global review. Here, we summarize the state of knowledge of lead poisoning of raptors, we review developments in manufacturing of non-lead ammunition, the use of which can reduce the most pervasive source of lead these birds encounter, and we compile data on voluntary and regulatory mitigation options and their associated sociological context. We support our literature review with case studies of mitigation actions, largely provided by the conservation practitioners who study or manage these efforts. Our review illustrates the growing awareness and understanding of lead exposure of raptors, and it shows that the science underpinning this understanding has expanded considerably in recent years. We also show that the political and social appetite for managing lead ammunition appears to vary substantially across administrative regions, countries, and continents. Improved understanding of the drivers of this variation could support more effective mitigation of lead exposure of wildlife. This review also shows that mitigation strategies are likely to be most effective when they are outcome driven, consider behavioural theory, local cultures, and environmental conditions, effectively monitor participation, compliance, and levels of raptor exposure, and support both environmental and human health.

Basic Hazard Control Plan for Small Wild Ungulates Slaughtered for Meat Production

Animal slaughter plans and related activities must not increase the number of hazards in meat. In their nature, these processes must reduce possible hazards to minimum or acceptable levels. This is a generally accepted concept worldwide; hence, authorities continue to develop regulations that seek to mitigate the scourge of meat hazards for consumer protection. The situation is similar with small wild ungulate meat, in which a hazard analysis plan needs developing to improve meat safety. This investigation follows a narrative review of articles published for a PhD program and other scholarly articles supporting the concept of a basic slaughter plan for small wild ungulate animals in South Africa. The findings of this investigation highlight the need to control hazards within one health concept plan, which should be implemented and propagated by establishing forums that will drive meat safety solutions in these communities. There should be a basic hygiene slaughter plan developed and endorsed by all members of the forum. The outcome must be the control of microbiological, chemical and physical hazards from farm-to-fork, and as part of a system imbedded in game meat policies and regulations.

Cause and Effect Analysis between Influencing Factors Related to Environmental Conditions, Hunting and Handling Practices and the Initial Microbial Load of Game Carcasses

Environmental, hunting and handling factors affect the microbial load of hunted game and the resulting meat products. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate the influence of several factors on the initial microbial load (IML) of game carcasses during the early hunting chain. Eviscerated roe deer body cavities (n = 24) were investigated in terms of total viable count and the levels of Pseudomonas spp., Lactobacillus spp., Enterobacteriaceae and Escherichia coli (E. coli). Furthermore, a risk analysis based on the obtained original IML data, literature search and a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) was performed. The IML could be explained in a regression model by factors including the higher body weight (BW), damaged gastrointestinal tract by the shot, ambient temperature or rain. The levels of Lactobacillus spp. (p = 0.0472), Enterobacteriaceae (p = 0.0070) and E. coli (p = 0.0015) were lower on the belly flap surface when gloves were used during evisceration. The literature search revealed that studies examining influencing factors (IF) on the IML of game carcasses found contradictory effects of the comparable IF on IML. Potential handling failures may lead to a higher IML of game carcasses during the early hunting chain ranked by FMEA. Several handling practices for game carcasses are recommended, such as ensuring efficient cooling of heavier BW carcasses to limit bacterial growth or eviscerating heavier carcasses before lighter ones.

Exposure of wild boars (Sus scrofa L) to neonicotinoid insecticides

The aim was to determine, for the first time, concentrations of 7 neonicotinoids (NEOs) and 5 metabolites in Sus scrofa from hunting areas in north-eastern Poland and assess the risk to consumers eating boar meat. 42 wild boar muscle samples were collected over a one-year period. The concentrations of 12 NEOs were determined by a fully validated LC-ESI-MS/MS protocol based on ultrasonic, freezing and cleanup EMR-lipid sample preparation. NEOs were present in over 83% of samples, 17% had no residue, and one pesticide was present in 36% of samples. Most often found were: clothianidin (35%), acetamiprid and imidacloprid (33%), thiacloprid (31%), thiamethoxam (9%), and the average concentrations were (ng g^-1): thiacloprid 6.2 > imidacloprid 5.7 > acetamiprid 4.6 > clothianidin 2.2 > thiacloprid 1.6 > thiamethoxam 1.0. Multi-residue samples were found, one with 7 and one with 5 NEOs. Two NEOs were present in 24%; 3 in 39% and 4 in 10% of samples. In the metabolic degradation of acetamiprid, imidacloprid and thiacloprid, it was observed that metabolites account for no more than 8.5% of the measured parent substance. Acetamiprid-n-desmethyl was noted most often (21%). Due to the detection of NEOs in a large proportion of samples, chronic and acute risk assessment were performed. The estimated chronic and acute risk for consumers from NEOs neonicotinoids through the consumption of wild boar was very low and amounted to respectively 0.02% of ADI and 0.86% of ARfD.

A comparison of fragmenting lead-based and lead-free bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs

In response to the health threats posed by toxic lead to humans, scavenging wildlife and the environment, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead-based to lead-free bullets for shooting of wild animals. We compared efficiency metrics and terminal ballistic performance for lead-based and lead-free (non-lead) bullets for aerial shooting of wild pigs (Sus scrofa) in eastern Australia. Ballistic testing revealed that lead-based and lead-free bullets achieved similar performance in precision and muzzle kinetic energy (E0) levels (3337.2 J and 3345.7 J, respectively). An aerial shooting trial was conducted with wild pigs shot with one type of lead-based and one type of lead-free bullets under identical conditions. Observations were made from 859 shooting events (n = 430 and 429 respectively), with a sub-set of pigs examined via gross post-mortem (n = 100 and 108 respectively), and a further sub-set examined via radiography (n = 94 and 101 respectively). The mean number of bullets fired per pig killed did not differ greatly between lead-based and lead-free bullets respectively (4.09 vs 3.91), nor did the mean number of bullet wound tracts in each animal via post-mortem inspection (3.29 vs 2.98). However, radiography revealed a higher average number of fragments per animal (median >300 vs median = 55) and a broader distribution of fragments with lead-based bullets. Our results suggest that lead-based and lead-free bullets are similarly effective for aerial shooting of wild pigs, but that the bullet types behave differently, with lead-based bullets displaying a higher degree of fragmentation. These results suggest that aerial shooting may be a particularly important contributor to scavenging wildlife being exposed to lead and that investigation of lead-free bullets for this use should continue.

Until It's a regulation It's not my fight: Complexities of a voluntary nonlead hunting ammunition program

Wildlife and human health are at risk of lead exposure from spent hunting ammunition. Lead exposure persists for bald eagles due to bullet fragments in game animal gut piles and unretrieved carcasses, and is also a human health risk when wild game is procured using lead ammunition. Programs encouraging the voluntary use of nonlead ammunition have become a popular approach mitigating these effects. This study explored attitudes and experiences of United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) staff implementing an outreach program encouraging deer hunters to voluntary use nonlead ammunition on 54 National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) in the Upper Midwest, U.S. to understand factors affecting program implementation. We conducted 29 semi-structured interviews of USFWS staff along with 60 responses from an open-ended survey question. Twelve themes emerged from the data and were grouped into three broad categories: (1) challenges of dealing with complex issues, (2) importance of messengers and messages, and (3) resistance from staff. Challenges of dealing with complex issues included administrative restraint and uncertainty, scope and scale of program, human health not an agency responsibility, contextual political influences, and public-private collaborations. Importance of messengers and messages included the importance of experience, and salience of human health risk. Finally, resistance from staff included skepticism of the science and motives behind the program, competing priorities for refuge staff, differing perceptions of regulatory and voluntary approaches, cost and availability of nonlead ammunition, and disregard by some about lead ammunition and human health risks. Staff identified numerous challenges implementing the program, many of which were external factors beyond the control of the participants. Understanding the factors affecting program implementation may help guide future efforts encouraging the voluntary use of nonlead ammunition.

Regulations on lead ammunition adopted in Europe and evidence of compliance

The transition to non-lead ammunition has been enforced by regulations on use and possession of lead shot and rifle bullets. Here we review the scientific and technical literature about this regulatory process in Europe and give some notes of its effectiveness to reduce this source of lead contamination in aquatic and terrestrial environments. Presently, lead shot use has been legally restricted in 23 European countries. Two, Denmark and The Netherlands, have a total ban of lead gunshot use in all types of habitats, 16 countries have a total ban in wetlands and/or for waterbird hunting, and 5 have a partial ban implemented only in some wetlands. The legal regulation of lead bullets is limited to some German regions. This review also highlights the need to know the level of compliance with the ban on lead ammunition and the subsequent benefits for the susceptible species and for game meat safety.

Fragmentation of lead-free and lead-based hunting rifle bullets under real life hunting conditions in Germany

As lead is a heavy metal showing high toxicity for many organisms, its entry in the ecosystem should be minimised. Nevertheless, considerable quantities are deposited in the environment via hunting ammunition. Such practice is responsible for the occurrence of lead poisoning in many wildlife species and represents a health risk to humans. We assess the differences in the fragmentation patterns of lead-based and lead-free hunting rifle bullets using the radiographic characteristics of gunshot wounds. We took radiographs of 297 wild ungulates shot during regular hunting events in Germany. Compared to lead-free ammunition, both the number of bullet fragments and the maximal distance between fragments and the wound channel increased when bullets were lead-based. Under normal German hunting conditions, the use of lead-based bullets causes a broad contamination of the carcass and the viscera with bullet material. The wide-spread substitution of lead-based bullets through non-lead alternatives should therefore be further encouraged.

Unleaded hunting: Are copper bullets and lead-based bullets equally effective for killing big game?

Semi-jacketed lead-cored or copper-based homogenous rifle bullets are commonly used for hunting big game. Ever since their introduction in the 1990's, copper-based bullets have not been widely accepted by hunters due to limited supply, higher expense, and the perception that they exhibit inferior killing efficiency and correspondingly higher wounding rates. Here, we present data showing that animal flight distances for roe deer, red deer, brown bear, and moose dispatched with lead- or copper-based hunting bullets did not significantly differ from an animal welfare standardized animal flight distance based on body mass. Lead-cored bullets typical fragment on impact, whereas copper-based bullets retain more mass and expand more than their leaden counterparts. Our data demonstrate that the relative killing efficiency of lead and copper bullets is similar in terms of animal flight distance after fatal shots. Hunters that traditionally use lead bullets should consider switching to copper bullets to enhance human and environmental health.

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

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.

Comparison of lead levels in edible parts of red deer hunted with lead or non-lead ammunition

Game meat may contain elevated concentrations of lead especially if lead-containing ammunition is used for hunting. Then a health risk is possible for consumer groups with high game meat intake. The lead concentrations in three edible parts (marketable meat from the area close to the wound channel, saddle and haunch) of meat from red deer (Cervus elaphus) between animals hunted either with lead or non‑lead ammunition were compared. Furthermore, lead levels in game meat of lead-shot red deer were compared with those of lead-shot roe deer and lead-shot wild boar. Ninety red deer were shot and killed in the context of this study (64 with lead and 26 with non‑lead ammunition). Since the lead concentration for a number of the samples was below the limit of detection or the limit of quantification, statistical methods for left-censored data were applied. The median concentrations of lead in game meat did not differ significantly between lead shot and non‑lead shot animals. However, when we analyzed the more elevated lead concentrations, they were significantly higher in edible parts of animals shot with lead ammunition than non-lead ammunition. The highest concentrations were found in samples from edible meat from the area close to the wound channel (max 3442 mg Pb/kg), followed by the saddle (max 1.14 mg Pb/kg) and with the lowest levels in the haunch (max 0.09 mg Pb/kg). A comparison of game species revealed that the lead concentration in haunch and saddle of lead shot red deer was higher than in the corresponding samples of lead shot roe deer. Our results have shown that by the use of non-lead ammunition, a significant reduction of the lead concentration especially in edible parts near the wound channel is possible.

Rationale for the regulated transition to non-lead products in Canada: A policy discussion paper

Lead gunshot, rifle bullets, and fishing weights are still allowed in Canadian provincially-regulated hunting and fishing, despite the contribution to lead exposure in humans, wildlife, and the environment. Non-lead gunshot and fishing weights are required in Canada only for waterfowl hunting, and angling in national parks and national wildlife areas. Lead wheel weights are also allowed and comprise a majority of the Canadian market. Effective non-lead substitutes for these products exist, and are already required in various American and European jurisdictions. Several analyses commissioned by the Canadian government in 2018 identified the problems of lead exposure attributable to these four lead products. Lead is already listed under Schedule 1 of the Canadian Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) that authorizes the government to undertake measures to reduce exposure. CEPA could require, simultaneously, use of non-lead ammunition, fishing weights and wheel weights at the national level, following an appropriate phase-in period. The low provincial and territorial licence fees for hunting and fishing in Canada would offset any costs associated with use of lead substitutes. Costs for non-lead wheel weights would comprise a small percentage of the costs of new vehicles and new tire purchases. This regulatory initiative would complement other Canadian national bans on lead products. Because there is no safe threshold level for blood lead, use of non-lead products would benefit the health of humans, scavengers, upland game species, and fish-eating birds.

Defining animal welfare standards in hunting: body mass determines thresholds for incapacitation time and flight distance

Shooting is an important tool for managing terrestrial wildlife populations worldwide. To date, however, there has been few quantitative methods available enabling assessment of the animal welfare outcomes of rifle hunting. We apply a variety of factors to model flight distance (distance travelled by an animal after bullet impact) and incapacitation from the moment of bullet impact. These factors include body mass, allometric and isometric scaling, comparative physiology, wound ballistics and linear kinematics. This approach provides for the first time a method for quantifying and grading the quality of shooting processes by examining only body mass and flight distance. Our model is a universally applicable tool for measuring animal welfare outcomes of shooting regimes both within and among species. For management agencies the model should be a practical tool for monitoring and evaluating animal welfare outcomes regarding shooting of mammalian populations.

Lead content in wild game shot with lead or non-lead ammunition - Does "state of the art consumer health protection" require non-lead ammunition?

The toxicity of lead has been known for a long time, and no safe uptake level can be derived for humans. Consumers’ intake via food should therefore be kept as low as possible. Game meat can contain elevated levels of lead due to the use of lead ammunition for hunting. A risk assessment conducted in 2010 by the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment including various consumption scenarios revealed a possible health risk for extreme consumers of game meat hunted with lead ammunition (i.e. hunters and members of hunters’ households). Babies, infants, children and women of childbearing age were identified as vulnerable group with regards to the developmental neurotoxicity of lead. It was noted, that a sound data base was required in order to refine the assessment. Therefore, the research project “Safety of game meat obtained through hunting” (LEMISI) has been conducted in Germany, with the aims of determining the concentrations of lead (as well as of copper and zinc) brought into the edible parts of game meat (roe deer (Capreolus capreolus) and wild boar (Sus scrofa)) due to using either lead or non-lead hunting ammunition, whilst concurrently taking geogenic (i.e. “background”) levels of lead into account. Compared to non-lead ammunition, lead ammunition significantly increased lead concentrations in the game meat. The use of both lead and non-lead ammunition deposited copper and zinc in the edible parts of game meat, and the concentrations were in the range of those detected regularly in meat of farm animals. For the average consumer of game meat in Germany the additional uptake of lead only makes a minor contribution to the average alimentary lead exposure. However, for consumers from hunters’ households the resulting uptake of lead–due to lead ammunition—can be several times higher than the average alimentary lead exposure. Non-lead bullets in combination with suitable game meat hygienic measures are therefore recommended in order to ensure “state of the art consumer health protection”.

Chronic Lead Intoxication From Eating Wild-Harvested Game

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this article is to determine if conversion from eating wild game harvested with lead-based ammunition to nonlead-based ammunition results in lower blood lead levels. Supersonic injection of toxin-leeching frangible projectiles into food is intuitively bad. As much as 95% of the ~13.7 million hunters in the United States choose shrapnel-inducing lead bullets to kill game; in addition, not harvesting meat is an incarcerable crime. A lead ammunition ban on certain federal lands was recently rescinded and the National Rifle Association refutes any risk from eating lead bullet-harvested game.

METHODS

A patient subsisting solely on lead-shot meat was converted to non-lead ammunition and his blood lead level tracked. Concomitant with his conversion to nonlead ammunition, a controlled experiment was performed using the patient's bullets to determine his daily lead intake from lead-shot meat.

RESULTS

While eating lead-shot meat, the patient was consuming 259.3 ± 235.6 µg of lead daily and his blood lead level was 74.7 µg/dL. Conversion to nonlead ammunition was associated with a reduced blood lead level.

CONCLUSIONS

Unsafe blood lead levels can occur from eating game harvested with lead ammunition. Physicians should warn hunting patients of this potential risk and counsel them about the availability of nonlead ammunition alternatives.

Heads in the sand: public health and ecological risks of lead-based bullets for wildlife shooting in Australia

Lead (Pb) is a toxic element banned from fuel, paint and many other products in most developed countries. Nonetheless, it is still widely used in ammunition, including rifle bullets, and Pb-based bullets are almost universally used in Australia. For decades, poisoning from Pb shot (shotguns) has been recognised as a cause of disease in waterfowl and Pb shot has been subsequently banned for waterfowl hunting in many jurisdictions. However, the risks posed by Pb-based bullets (rifles) have not been similarly recognised in Australia. Pb-based rifle bullets frequently fragment, contaminating the tissue of shot animals. Consuming this Pb-contaminated tissue risks harmful Pb exposure and, thus, the health of wildlife scavengers (carrion eaters) and humans and their companion animals who consume harvested meat (game eaters). In Europe, North America and elsewhere, the environmental and human health risks of Pb-based bullets are widely recognised, and non-toxic alternatives (e.g. copper-based bullets) are increasingly being used. However, Australia has no comparable research despite widespread use of shooting, common scavenging by potentially susceptible wildlife species, and people regularly consuming shot meat. We conclude that Australia has its collective ‘head in the sand’ on this pressing worldwide One Health issue. We present the need for urgent research into this field in Australia.