Suchergebnisse

Context In response to the toxic health threats posed by lead (Pb), there is currently a focus on transitioning to lead-free bullets for shooting wild animals. Aim We aimed to quantify the killing efficiency and animal welfare outcomes of lead-based and lead-free (copper-based) bullets for ground-based shooting of sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) in Victoria, south-eastern Australia. Methods We used shooter-collected data from recreational diurnal hunting and professional nocturnal culling during 2020–2021. Shooters recorded rifle calibre, cartridge type, bullet mass, bullet type, shooting outcomes (miss, wound or kill), shooting distance, flight distance (the distance between where the animal was shot and where it died) as an assumed positive correlate of time to incapacitation, anatomical zones struck by bullets, and frequency of bullet exit wounds. We used flight distance as our response variable, assuming that it is positively correlated with time to incapacitation. To examine the role of several predictor variables (including bullet type) potentially influencing flight distance, the dataset was reduced to those deer killed with a single thoracic shot. Key results Our data captured shooting events involving 276 deer, with 124 deer shot at with lead-based bullets and 152 with copper-based bullets. Most (87%) of the deer were killed with a single shot. The frequency of non-fatal wounding was <4% for both bullet types and there was no distinct difference in the probability of a single shot kill for deer shot with either bullet type. For those deer killed with a single thoracic shot (n = 198), there was no evidence that bullet energy or shooting distance influenced flight distance. After accounting for differences in terminal kinetic energy, the mean flight distance of deer shot with lead-free bullets (35 m) was 56% greater than that of deer shot with lead-based bullets (22 m). Conclusions Lead-based and lead-free bullets produced similar animal welfare outcomes for shooting sambar deer. Implications A transition to lead-free ammunition for shooting sambar deer would have minimal impact on efficiency or animal welfare outcomes.

Several important techniques for managing wildlife rely on ballistics (the behaviour of projectiles), including killing techniques (shooting) as well as capture and marking methods (darting). Because all ballistic techniques have the capacity to harm animals, animal welfare is an important consideration. Standardised testing approaches that have allowed refinement for other physical killing and capture methods (e.g. traps for mammals) have not been applied broadly to ballistic methods. At the same time, new technology is becoming available for shooting (e.g. subsonic and lead-free ammunition) and darting (e.g. dye-marker darts). We present several case studies demonstrating (a) how basic ballistic testing can be performed for novel firearms and/or projectiles, (b) the benefits of identifying methods producing undesirable results before operational use, and (c) the welfare risks associated with bypassing testing of a technique before broad-scale application. Following the approach that has been used internationally to test kill-traps, we suggest the following four-step testing process: (1) range and field testing to confirm accuracy and precision, the delivery of appropriate kinetic energy levels and projectile behaviour, (2) post-mortem assessment of ballistic injury in cadavers, (3) small-scale live animal pilot studies with predetermined threshold pass/fail levels, and (4) broad-scale use with reporting of the frequency of adverse animal welfare outcomes. We present this as a practical approach for maintaining and improving animal welfare standards when considering the use of ballistic technology for wildlife management.