IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/env/journl/ev6ev609.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes and Issues Preventing Bans on Toxic Lead Shot and Sinkers in North America and Europe

Author

Listed:
  • Vernon G. Thomas

Abstract

It is paradoxical that lead shot and fishing sinkers are still used widely, given society's understanding of lead contamination and avian lead toxicosis. The statutory action taken by governments varies from total bans on both lead products to no regulation of either shot or sinkers. Many government agencies and field sport organisations are reluctant to use the precautionary principle and the polluter pays principle and regulate use of available non-toxic substitutes. The attitudes of individuals towards their roles in environmental lead contamination and remediation reflect marked self-deception about the need for changes and the benefits to be derived from substitution. Fatal lead poisoning of highly symbolic, revered species such as British mute swans and American bald eagles promoted development of national regulations to ban lead shot and fishing weights. Despite the parallels between these countries' reforms, there has been little parity between the banning of lead shot and fishing sinkers.

Suggested Citation

  • Vernon G. Thomas, 1997. "Attitudes and Issues Preventing Bans on Toxic Lead Shot and Sinkers in North America and Europe," Environmental Values, White Horse Press, vol. 6(2), pages 185-199, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:env:journl:ev6:ev609
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/whp/ev/1997/00000006/00000002/art00004
    Download Restriction: downloads of articles require payment or registration of paid subscription

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Waterfowl conservation; attitudes; beliefs; lead shot and sinkers; non-toxic regulations; precautionary principle;

    JEL classification:

    • Q2 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:env:journl:ev6:ev609. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Andrew Johnson). General contact details of provider: http://www.whp-journals.co.uk .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.