Abstract


Recent national and international policy initiatives have aimed to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition. Despite restrictions, in the UK, lead ammunition remains the most widespread source of environmental lead contamination to which wildlife may be exposed.

The risks arising from the use of lead ammunition and the measures taken to mitigate these have prompted intense and sometimes acrimonious discussion between stakeholder groups, including those advancing the interests of shooting, wildlife conservation, public health and animal welfare.

However, relatively little is known of the perspectives of individual ammunition users, despite their role in adding lead to the environment and their pivotal place in any potential changes to practice. Using Q‐methodology, we identified the perspectives of ammunition users in the UK on lead ammunition in an effort to bring forward evidence from these key stakeholders.

Views were characterised by two statistically and qualitatively distinct perspectives: (a) Open to change—comprised ammunition users that refuted the view that lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning in wild birds, believed that solutions to reduce the risks of poisoning are needed, were happy to use non‐lead alternatives and did not feel that the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of shooting; and (b) Status quo—comprised ammunition users who did not regard lead poisoning as a major welfare problem for wild birds, were ambivalent about the need for solutions and felt that lead shot is better than steel at killing and not wounding an animal. They believed opposition to lead ammunition was driven more by a dislike of shooting than evidence of any harm.

Adherents to both perspectives agreed that lead is a toxic substance. There was consensus that involvement of stakeholders from all sides of the debate was desirable and that to be taken seriously by shooters, information about lead poisoning should come from the shooting community.

This articulation of views held by practitioners within the shooting community presents a foundation for renewing discussions, beyond current conflict among stakeholder and advocacy groups, towards forging new solutions and adaptation of practices.

A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Over the last 40 years, many goose populations have recovered from historic lows and are now more numerous than ever. At the same time, geese have shifted from natural foraging habitats to securing most of their nutritional demands from agricultural fields, leading to crop damage and conflict with agriculture. We studied field use by Greylag Geese (Anser anser) in the agricultural landscape surrounding a main breeding and moulting lake in Sweden. From 2012 to 2016, weekly roadside surveys were conducted from May to July. Data were collected on goose numbers, crop type and sward height in agricultural fields. Using a compositional analysis, we demonstrate that Greylag Geese show a strong selection for ley and pasture fields compared to other crop types (rank order: ley/pasture > oat > barley > wheat > other crops). This selection was consistent across years and between pre- and post-moult. Aside from ley and pasture, no other crop types were selected for, as they were used less than expected given their availability. Irrespective of crop type, geese foraged predominantly on short (0-10 cm) swards. The strong selection for ley and pasture may have been driven by higher nutritional quality of short, managed grass swards relative to other available foods. This suggests that during the summer grass fields may be more vulnerable to damage compared to other crop types. Our study provides a deeper understanding of the ecology of Greylag Geese, which may be used to inform management strategies focused on mitigating crop damage and alleviating conflict.

BackgroundReports from UK hunters of ‘rice grains’ in muscles of shot wildfowl (Anatidae) coincided temporally with the finding of sarcocystosis in a number of ducks found as part of the Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust long‐term general surveillance of found dead waterbirds. Sarcocystis rileyi has also been relatively recently confirmed in wildfowl in north‐eastern Europe.MethodsThis study uses four approaches to investigate UK wildfowl sarcocystosis: first, through a hunter questionnaire that captured historical case data; secondly, through an online reporting system; thirdly, DNA sequencing to characterise UK cases; and fourthly, histological myopathy assessment of infected pectoral muscle.ResultsOur questionnaire results suggest Sarcocystis infection is widely distributed throughout the UK and observed in 10 Anatidae species, reported cases increased since the 2010/2011 shooting season, with the online reporting system reflecting this increase. DNA sequencing (18S rRNA gene and internal transcribed spacer‐1 region) of UK isolates confirmed S rileyi in the five dabbling duck host species tested and the associated histopathological myopathy is described.ConclusionThis work highlights an emerging issue to European wildfowl species and provides much opportunity for further research, including the impacts of S rileyi and the described myopathy on host health, fitness and survival.

Abstract


Recent national and international policy initiatives have aimed to reduce the exposure of humans and wildlife to lead from ammunition. Despite restrictions, in the UK, lead ammunition remains the most widespread source of environmental lead contamination to which wildlife may be exposed.

The risks arising from the use of lead ammunition and the measures taken to mitigate these have prompted intense and sometimes acrimonious discussion between stakeholder groups, including those advancing the interests of shooting, wildlife conservation, public health and animal welfare.

However, relatively little is known of the perspectives of individual ammunition users, despite their role in adding lead to the environment and their pivotal place in any potential changes to practice. Using Q‐methodology, we identified the perspectives of ammunition users in the UK on lead ammunition in an effort to bring forward evidence from these key stakeholders.

Views were characterised by two statistically and qualitatively distinct perspectives: (a) Open to change—comprised ammunition users that refuted the view that lead ammunition is not a major source of poisoning in wild birds, believed that solutions to reduce the risks of poisoning are needed, were happy to use non‐lead alternatives and did not feel that the phasing out of lead shot would lead to the demise of shooting; and (b) Status quo—comprised ammunition users who did not regard lead poisoning as a major welfare problem for wild birds, were ambivalent about the need for solutions and felt that lead shot is better than steel at killing and not wounding an animal. They believed opposition to lead ammunition was driven more by a dislike of shooting than evidence of any harm.

Adherents to both perspectives agreed that lead is a toxic substance. There was consensus that involvement of stakeholders from all sides of the debate was desirable and that to be taken seriously by shooters, information about lead poisoning should come from the shooting community.

This articulation of views held by practitioners within the shooting community presents a foundation for renewing discussions, beyond current conflict among stakeholder and advocacy groups, towards forging new solutions and adaptation of practices.

A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Nature-based health interventions (NBIs) for the treatment of poor mental health are becoming increasingly common, yet evidence to support their effectiveness is lacking. We conduct a pilot study of a six-week intervention, aiming to engage individuals with wetland nature for the treatment of anxiety and/or depression. We employed a mixed methods design, using questionnaires, focus groups and semi-structured interviews to evaluate the intervention from the perspective of participants (n = 16) and healthcare professionals (n = 2). Results demonstrate significant improvements in mental health across a range of indicators, including mental wellbeing (Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale), anxiety (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7), stress (Perceived Stress Scale) and emotional wellbeing (Positive and Negative Affect Schedule). Participants and healthcare professionals cited additional outcomes including improved physical health and reduced social isolation. The wetland site provided a sense of escape from participants’ everyday environments, facilitating relaxation and reductions in stress. Wetland staff knowledge of the natural world, transportation and group organisation also played a considerable role in the intervention’s success. These aspects should be considered in future and existing NBIs to maximise benefits to participants. We propose NBIs based in wetlands are an effective therapy option for individuals diagnosed with anxiety and/or depression.