Advertisement

European Journal of Wildlife Research

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 271–283 | Cite as

Switch to non-toxic shot in the Camargue, France: effect on waterbird contamination and hunter effectiveness

  • J.-Y. Mondain-Monval
  • Pierre Defos du Rau
  • M. Guillemain
  • A. Olivier
Original Paper

Abstract

The use of lead shot for wildfowling is a severe threat to waterbirds through ingestion of toxic lead pellets. Consequently, lead shot has been banned in many countries since the late 1990s and on Tour du Valat estate since 1994 (Camargue, France). An experimental study was undertaken to check if hunters would habituate to this new type of cartridge and consequently improve their effectiveness (average number of shots per bagged animal), assess the factors influencing effectiveness, and assess the trend of contamination in shot waterbirds and the estate sediment. From 1995 to 2005, we monitored hunting bags, spent cartridges, and the gizzards of shot ducks. Using generalized mixed effect models, we assessed the factors influencing hunter effectiveness. Instances of non-toxic pellets in duck gizzards increased, probably as a result of rapid accumulation in the sediments. We estimated that between 1995 and 2005, the lead shot ban spared 456 kg of lead from entering 403 ha of temporary marshes and avoided the contamination of 8 % of the ducks foraging on Tour du Valat. After 11 years of hunting with non-toxic shot, there was unexpectedly no clear pattern in trends of individual effectiveness among hunters. Hunter effectiveness was instead positively influenced by game abundance and hunter assiduity and negatively influenced by wind and number of shots, suggesting a lassitude effect. Our results suggest crippling loss can be reduced through regular practice, self-limitation of shooting intensity to below 20 shots to avoid lassitude effects, and self-limitation of shooting distance under strong wind conditions.

Keywords

Hunting Lead contamination Non-toxic ammunition Shooting effectiveness Wildfowl 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We warmly thank all the hunters of TdV for having patiently and conscientiously recorded their results. Luc Hoffmann, Jean-Paul Taris, Jean Jalbert, Olivier Pineau, and Bernard Clarion supported this experiment in allowing the hunting group to operate on TdV estate. Niels Kanstrup and Jean-Dominique Lebreton were very helpful in providing statistical guidance, advice, and references. Jean-Dominique Lebreton and Alan Johnson also provided valuable comments on a draft version of this manuscript, and Alan Johnson and David Simpson improved the English. Francis Grange, John Harradine, Alain Malagutti, Tom Roster, and Paul Seite provided useful pieces of advice regarding the use of alternative non-toxic shot. Three anonymous reviewers greatly improved the quality of this paper.

References

  1. Ackerman JT, Eadie JM, Szymanski ML, Caswell JH, Vrtiska MP, Raedeke AH, Checkett JM, Afton AD, Moore TG, Caswell FD, Walters RA, Humberg DD, Yee JL (2006) Effectiveness of spinning-wing decoys varies among dabbling duck species and locations. J Wildl Manage 70:799–804CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AEWA (2002) Special issue n°1. Lead poisoning in waterbirds through the ingestion of spent lead shot. 26 pagesGoogle Scholar
  3. Bednarik K (1961) Waterfowl hunting on a controlled public area. Publication W-127, Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OhioGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellrose FC (1953) A preliminary evaluation of cripple losses in waterfowl. Trans NA m Wildl Nat Res Conf 18:337–360Google Scholar
  5. Bolker BM, Brooks ME, Clark CJ, Geange SW, Poulsen JR, Stevens MHH, White JS (2009) Generalized linear mixed models: a practical guide for ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol 24:127–135CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyd H (1971) Observations on duck hunting in eastern Canada in 1968 and 1969. Canadian Wildlife Service occasional Paper 12Google Scholar
  7. Bregnballe T, Madsen J (2004) Tools in waterfowl reserve management: effects of intermittent hunting adjacent to a shooting-free core area. Wildlife Biol 10:261–268Google Scholar
  8. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Cade TJ (2007) Exposure of California condors to lead from spent ammunition. J Wildl Manage 71:2125–2133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS (2003) Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavorial sciences, 3rd edn. Lawrence Elbaum Associates, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Cromie RL, Loram A, Hurst L, O’Brien M, Newth J, Brown MJ (2010) Compliance with the environmental protection (Restrictions on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. Bristol: Defra; 2010Google Scholar
  12. Epps CW (2014) Considering the switch: challenges of transitioning to non-lead hunting ammunition. Condor 116(3):429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fisher IJ, Pain DJ, Thomas VG (2006) A review of lead poisoning from ammunition sources in terrestrial birds. Biol Conserv 131:421–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garrison DA, Fedynich AM, Smith AJ, Ferro PJ, Butler DA, Peterson MJ, Lupiani B (2011) Ingestion of lead and nontoxic shot by green-winged teal (Anas crecca) and Northern shovelers (Anas clypeata) from the Mid-Gulf Coast of Texas, USA. J Wildl Dis 47:784–786CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Guillemain M, Devineau O, Lebreton JD, Mondain-Monval JY, Johnson AR, Simon G (2007) Lead shot and teal (Anas crecca) in the Camargue, Southern France: effects of embedded and ingested pellets on survival. Biol Conserv 137:567–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gutzwiller KJ (1990) Minimizing dog-induced biases in game bird research. Wildl Soc Bull 18:351–356Google Scholar
  17. Haig SM, D’Elia CJ, Eagles-Smith C, Fair JM, Gervais J, Herring G, Rivers JW, Schulz JH (2014) The persistent problem of lead poisoning in birds from ammunition and fishing tackle. Condor 116(3):408–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Humburg DD, Sheriff SL, Geissler PH, Roster T (1982) Shotshell and shooter effectiveness, lead vs steel shot for duck hunting. Wildl Soc Bull 10:121–126Google Scholar
  19. Kanstrup N (2006) Non-toxic shot – Danish experiences. In: Boere GC, Galbraith CA, Stroud DA (eds) Waterbirds around the world. The Stationery Office, Edinburgh, p 861Google Scholar
  20. Leeming DW (1996) A review of the methods to assess the lethality of shotguns and shotgun cartridges in shooting game. In: Harradine J (ed) Proceedings of the seminar “Non-toxic shot: progress and needs”. British Association for Shooting and Conservation, pp 57–76Google Scholar
  21. Mateo R, Vallverdú-Coll N, López-Antia A, Taggart MA, Martínez-Haro M, Guitart R, Ortiz-Santaliestra ME (2014) Reducing Pb poisoning in birds and Pb exposure in game meat consumers: the dual benefit of effective Pb shot regulation. Environ Int 63:163–168CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. May C (2007) Improve your shooting. BASC’s respect for quarry programme shooting and conservation September/October 2007:8–11Google Scholar
  23. Miller MR, Beam J, Connelly DP (1988) Dabbling duck harvest dynamics in the Central Valley of California—implication for recruitment. In: Weller MW (ed) Waterfowl in winter. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 553–569Google Scholar
  24. Mondain-Monval JY, Reudet D, Roca L (1999) Munitions non toxiques, quelles alternatives aujourd’hui? Bilan des tests réalisés et situation en France. Bull Mens ONC 240:28–35Google Scholar
  25. Mondain-Monval JY, Desnouhes L, Taris JP (2002) Lead shot ingestion in waterbirds in the Camargue, France. Game Wildl Sci 19:237–246Google Scholar
  26. Montalbano F, Hines TC (1978) An improved X-Ray technique for investigating ingestion of lead by waterfowl. Proc Ann Conf Southeastern Assoc Fish Wildl Agen 32:364–368Google Scholar
  27. Morehouse KA (1992) Crippling loss and shot-type : the United States Experience. In: Pain DJ (ed) Lead poisoning in waterfowl, Proceedings of an IWRB Workshop. IWRB Special Publication 16, Brussels, pp 32–37Google Scholar
  28. Nakagawa S, Schielzeth H (2013) A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Method Ecol Evol 4:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Newth JL, Cromie RL, Brown MJ, Delahay RJ, Meharg AA, Deacon C, Norton GJ, O’Brien MF, Pain DJ (2013) Poisoning from lead gunshot: still a threat to wild waterbirds in Britain. Eur J Wildl Res 59:195–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Noer H, Hartmann P, Christensen TK, Kanstrup N, Hansen EB (1999) Anskydning af vildt Status for undersøgelser. 1999 Faglig rapport fra DMU 284, Danmarks MiljøundersøgelserGoogle Scholar
  31. Noer H, Madsen J, Hartmann P (2007) Reducing wounding of game by shotgun hunting: effects of a Danish action plan on pink-footed geese. J Appl Ecol 44:653–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Olivier A, Mondain-Monval JY, Massez G (2010) Le lapin de garenne. In: Poitevin F, Olivier A, Bayle P, Scher O (eds) Mammifères de Camargue. Regards du Vivant et Parc Naturel Régional de Camargue. Marseille, pp 186–192Google Scholar
  33. Pain DJ (1991) Lead shot densities and settlement rates in Camargue marshes, France. Biol Conserv 57:273–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pain DJ (1992) Lead poisoning of waterfowl: a review of Lead poisoning in waterfowl. In: Pain DJ (ed) Lead poisoning in waterfowl, Proceedings of an IWRB Workshop. IWRB Special Publication 16, Brussels, pp 7–13Google Scholar
  35. Pain DJ (1996) Lead in waterfowl environmental contaminants in wildlife: interpreting tissue concentrations. In: Beyer WN, Heinz GH, Redmon-Norwood AW (eds) SETAC special publication series. CRC Lewis, Boca Raton, pp 251–264Google Scholar
  36. Parker M (2011) Wildlife detection dogs. Wildl Prof 5:47–49Google Scholar
  37. Piaut-Beaurevoir M, Marchand M (1952) Balistique cynégétique. Edition Manufrance, St EtienneGoogle Scholar
  38. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. R Development Core Team (2011) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.r-project.org. Accessed 28 Apr 2011
  40. Roster T (2002) Ammunition and education. African-Eurasian waterbird agreement, special edition 1:12Google Scholar
  41. Sanderson GC, Bellrose FC (1986) A review of the problem of lead poisoning in waterfowl. Illinois Natural History Survey Special publication 4Google Scholar
  42. Schulz JH, Reitz RA, Sheriff SL, Millspaugh JJ, Padding PI (2009) Small game hunter attitudes toward nontoxic shot, and crippling rates with nontoxic shot. Extended abstract. In: Watson RT, Fuller M, Pokras M, Hunt WG (eds) Ingestion of lead from spent ammunition: implications for wildlife and humans. The Peregrine Fund, Boise, Idaho, USAGoogle Scholar
  43. Shedden CB (1992) The British hunter’s perspective to lead and steel shot. In: Pain DJ (ed) Lead poisoning in waterfowl, Proceedings of an IWRB Workshop. IWRB Special Publication 16, Brussels, pp 81–85Google Scholar
  44. St James EA, Schummer ML, Kaminski RM, Penny EJ, Burger LW (2013) Effect of weekly hunting frequency on duck abundances in Mississippi wildlife management areas. J Fish Wildl Manag 4(1):144–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stafford JD, Pearse AT, Hine CS, Yetter AP, Horath MM (2010) Factors associated with hunter success for ducks on state-owned lands in Illinois, USA. Wildlife Biol 16:113–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tavecchia G, Pradel R, Lebreton JD, Johnson AR, Mondain-Monval JY (2001) The effect of lead exposure on survival of adult mallards in the Camargue, southern France. J Appl Ecol 38:1197–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UNEP/AEWA Secretariat (2012) Agreement on the conservation of Africa-Eurasian migratory waterbirds (AEWA). Agreement Text and Annexes. As amended at the 5th Session of the Meeting of the Parties to AEWA 14–18 May 2012, La Rochelle, France. http://www.unep-aewa.org/sites/default/files/publication/aewa_agreement_text_2013_2015_en.pdf
  48. US Fish and Wildlife Service (1986) The use of lead for hunting migratory birds in the United States. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on the Use of Lead Shot for Hunting Migratory Birds FES 86–16, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  49. Walters CJ, Reeds R, Ward J (1973) Some factors determining success of duck hunters in southern British Columbia. Can Wildl Serv Prog Note 36Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.-Y. Mondain-Monval
    • 1
  • Pierre Defos du Rau
    • 1
  • M. Guillemain
    • 1
  • A. Olivier
    • 2
  1. 1.Office National de la Chasse et de la Faune Sauvage, CNERA Avifaune migratrice, La Tour du ValatArlesFrance
  2. 2.Centre de Recherche de la Tour du ValatArlesFrance

Personalised recommendations