Search

Much evidence demonstrates the adverse effects of lead ammunition on wildlife, their habitats and human health, and confirms that the use of such ammunition has no place within sustainable hunting. We identify the provisions that define sustainable hunting according to European law and international treaties, together with their guidance documents. We accept the substantial evidence for lead’s actual and potential effects on wildlife, habitats and health as persuasive and assess how these effects relate to stated provisions for sustainability and hunting. We evaluate how continued use of lead ammunition negatively affects international efforts to halt loss of biodiversity, sustain wildlife populations and conserve their habitats. We highlight the indiscriminate and avoidable health and welfare impacts for large numbers of exposed wild animals as ethically unsustainable. In societal terms, continued use of lead ammunition undermines public perceptions of hunting. Given the existence of acceptable, non-toxic alternatives for lead ammunition, we conclude that hunting with lead ammunition cannot be justified under established principles of public/international policy and is not sustainable. Changing from lead ammunition to non-toxic alternatives will bring significant nature conservation and human health gains, and from the hunter’s perspective will enhance societal acceptance of hunting. Change will create opportunities for improved constructive dialogue between hunting stakeholders and others engaged with enhancing biodiversity and nature conservation objectives. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s13280-018-1042-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Increasing abundance of geese in North America and Europe constitutes a major conservation success, but has caused increasing conflicts with economic, health and safety interests, as well as ecosystem impacts. Potential conflict resolution through a single, ‘one size fits all’ policy is hindered by differences in species’ ecology, behaviour, abundance and population status, and in contrasting political and socio-economic environments across the flyways. Effective goose management requires coordinated application of a suite of tools from the local level to strategic flyway management actions. The European Goose Management Platform, established under the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds, aims to harmonise and prioritise management, monitoring and conservation efforts, sharing best practice internationally by facilitating agreed policies, coordinating flyway efforts, and sharing and exchanging experiences and information. This depends crucially upon adequate government financing, the collection of necessary monitoring data (e.g., on distribution, abundance, hunting bags, demography, ecosystem and agricultural damage), the collation and effective use of such data and information, as well as the evaluation of outcomes of existing management measures.

The Scottish Raptor Monitoring Scheme (SRMS) comprises 7 partner organizations and was established in 2002 after i) the publication of the UK Government's Raptor Working Group Report that made recommendations for enhanced monitoring, ii) increased applied data needs (e.g., for site designation), and iii) concerns for the status of some species. The SRMS has 3 major objectives: i) to facilitate cooperation between parties; ii) to provide robust information on Scottish raptor populations by determining trends in numbers, range, survival, and productivity and understanding the causes of change; and iii) to maintain high and uniform standards for the collection, collation, auditing, and analysis of data and reporting of information. Data are collected for 19 species: 14 diurnal raptors, 4 owls, and 1 corvid, the Common Raven. Here we describe the development of the scheme, challenges, and achievements during its first 4 y, the nature and value of the data collected, and plans for the future.