In response to health threats posed by toxic lead to humans and scavenging wildlife, there is currently a focus on transitioning from lead‐based to lead‐free bullets for shooting (harvesting, culling, or recreational hunting) of wild animals. However, the efficacy of lead‐free bullets for shooting small mammals has seldom been evaluated. We compared the animal welfare outcomes and costs of using lead‐based and lead‐free bullets in the world's most popular cartridge, the rimfire .22 LR, for shooting wild European rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) in Australia, during August 2019. Ballistic testing revealed that lead‐free bullets were less precise than one type of commonly used lead‐based bullet when shot from one rifle. We shot at 53 and 115 rabbits with lead‐based and lead‐free bullets, respectively. A substantially lower percentage of rabbits that were hit were wounded (2%) with lead‐based bullets compared with lead‐free bullets (20%). Hence, fewer shots were needed to kill rabbits with lead‐based (1.27) than lead‐free (3.98) bullets. Radiographic examination of 28 rabbits shot with lead‐based bullets and 27 rabbits shot with lead‐free bullets revealed metallic fragments present in 82% and 41% of carcasses, respectively. In 52% of rabbits shot with lead‐free bullets, there was no radiographic evidence of bullets or fragments, indicating pass‐through shots. The greater cost per bullet and larger number of bullets required to kill a rabbit meant that using lead‐free bullets cost 6 times more per rabbit killed than using lead‐based bullets. The only commercially available lead‐free .22 LR bullets in Australia at the time of our study produced substantially poorer animal welfare outcomes, and were more expensive per killed rabbit, than lead‐based bullets. Lead‐free bullets designed to reduce lead exposure to scavenging wildlife and humans and should be assessed in terms of animal welfare outcomes and costs prior to being considered for widespread use. © 2020 The Wildlife Society.

中文翻译：

---

无铅.22 LR子弹射击欧洲兔子的评估

为了应对有毒铅对人类和清除野生生物造成的健康威胁，当前着重于从基于铅的子弹向无铅子弹的过渡，以射击（收获，淘汰或娱乐性狩猎）野生动物。但是，很少评估无铅子弹射击小型哺乳动物的功效。我们比较了动物福利的成果，并使用世界上最流行的墨盒，rimfire .22铅基和无铅子弹，用于拍摄野生穴兔的成本（家兔），于2019年8月在澳大利亚进行。弹道测试显示，用一根步枪射击时，无铅子弹的精确度不及一种常用的基于铅的子弹。我们分别射击了53只和115只含铅和无铅子弹的兔子。与无铅子弹（20％）相比，被铅击中的兔子受伤率（2％）显着降低。因此，用无铅子弹（3.98）消灭用含铅子弹（1.27）所需要的射击次数更少。放射学检查了28只用铅基子弹射击的兔子和27只用无铅子弹射击的兔子，发现分别有82％和41％的car体存在金属碎片。在52％的用无铅子弹射击的兔子中，没有射线照相的子弹或碎片证据，表明存在穿透射击。每只子弹的成本更高，而杀死一只兔子所需的子弹数量更多，这意味着使用无铅子弹每只兔子的成本要比使用基于铅的子弹高出6倍。在我们进行研究时，澳大利亚唯一的市售无铅.22 LR子弹比基于铅的子弹产生的动物福利结果差得多，每只被杀死的兔子价格更高。无铅子弹旨在减少清除野生动植物和人类中的铅，因此在考虑广泛使用之前，应根据动物福利结果和成本进行评估。©2020野生动物协会。在我们进行研究时，澳大利亚的22颗LR子弹比基于铅的子弹所产生的动物福利结果要差得多，每只被杀死的兔子要贵得多。无铅子弹旨在减少清除野生动植物和人类中的铅，因此在考虑广泛使用之前，应根据动物福利结果和成本进行评估。©2020野生动物协会。在我们进行研究时，澳大利亚的22颗LR子弹比基于铅的子弹所产生的动物福利结果要差得多，每只被杀死的兔子要贵得多。无铅子弹旨在减少清除野生动植物和人类中的铅，因此在考虑广泛使用之前，应根据动物福利结果和成本进行评估。©2020野生动物协会。