Badger Trust’s evidence based response to public comment

Badger Trust regularly receives comments from the public via email and social media, questioning the role of badgers in everything from their place in the ecosystem, to their population numbers.

Are badger numbers too high? Do they kill all the hedgehogs? Do they need their numbers managed by humans? Read on to see our response to one of these correspondences and find out the answer to these questions and more!

Following the evidence

It is a fallacy that predators always need human management to limit their numbers. Predator numbers are typically managed naturally by resource availability – food, water or space - than solely by the predation or competitive interactions with other predators (Carbone and Gittleman, 2002; Fuller and Kittredge Jr, 1996; Karanth et al., 2004). In terms of badgers and other social mesocarnivores, socially stable groups are actually much more likely and able to manage their own populations (Macdonald et al., 2009; Sugianto et al., 2021). Mesocarnivores in general have been shown to form vital components of ecosystems in the absence of apex predators, filling their vital ecological roles and preventing ecosystem collapse (Jiménez, 2019; Marneweck et al., 2022).  Sadly, many policymakers jump to lethal control of mesocarnivores, without fully understanding the highly complex ecological interactions and processes at play.

While it is true that in many instances, the loss of an apex predator can result in population explosions of mesocarnivores, this phenomenon has primarily been recorded in Canidae species, and has rarely been observed in mustelids. In fact, badgers have been found on multiple occasions to have had absolutely no change in population size or behaviour in areas where they live alongside apex predators (Allen et al., 2018; Burgos et al., 2022), suggesting that badgers are unlikely to experience this kind of external selective pressure to regulate their populations. 

Simply, the long history of persecution of badgers in this country means that there is no evidence that Eurasian badgers need to be ‘managed’, as we do not know what a ‘natural’ population density would be in a complete ecosystem. 

To add to this, badger numbers are lost in the tens of thousands every year to road traffic casualties alone, not factoring in illegal persecution, or the unmeasured impact from uncontrolled development.

Badgers and bTB

As you will know, M.bovis is a disease that can impact all terrestrial mammals to a greater or lesser extent. However, a five-year-long study in Northern Ireland used bacterial genome data to show that transmission of bTB was 800 times more likely to occur from cattle to badgers than from badgers to cattle (Akhmetova et al., 2023). The study, funded by the Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, also found that transmission rates from badger-cattle were negligible, and no badger-badger transmission was found. Repeatedly cattle-cattle transmission has been shown to be the predominant pathway (Donelly and Nouvellet, 2013), with other sources including, but not limited to, the spreading of slurry, farm vehicles, earthworms, cats, dogs, even humans (De la Rua-Domenech, 2006).  Repeatedly cattle-based measures have proven to be the most effective methods at reducing bTB transmission (Voller et al., 2025).

You are correct, bTB is a disease of over-population and overcrowding, but not of badgers. The chronic issue of bTB systemically comes from the failings of an industrialised cattle industry where overcrowding, husbandry issues, and poor biosecurity produce breeding grounds for bTB, as well as a host of other infectious, and preventable diseases.  Farming using better biosecurity management practices, testing and tracked movement of cattle, and working in tune with a cow's biological welfare needs is the most effective way to prevent bTB spreading between cows (Judge et al., 2011; Langton et al., 2022; Voller et al., 2025).

Badger populations have not, in fact, exploded. Prior to 1992 badger populations were close to the edge of collapse due to the government's policy on cyanide poisoning, a practice found to be horribly inhumane (Macdonald and Newman, 2022; Meyer, 2016), and the uncontrolled illegal persecution of badgers. The Protection of Badgers Act was necessarily brought in to protect the species from collapse.  The latest population estimate for badgers is now over 12 years old, and was done pre-cull. These figures estimated around 485,000 badgers - hardly an explosion of numbers (Judge et al., 2017). Bear in mind that since this study the government has killed over 230,000 badgers, and there has to-date, been no accurate study of badger numbers since, it is inaccurate, and unscientific, to claim an explosion in numbers. The sad reality is that we are having reports of local extinction events in the South-West so we suspect the opposite may be true. The government also continues to be monitored by the Bern Convention on the cull’s impact on the badger population.  What in fact you may be seeing is badgers increasingly marginalised from their homes and the ones that are left, resultantly becoming more visible.

Badgers are wildlife

It is a fallacy that badgers take lambs. In fact, a recent study from Scotland showed zero (0) incidences of badgers predating on lambs (George et al, 2024). Using gross methodology and molecular methods they showed no evidence for this being the case.  This was despite the fact that up to 30% of respondents believed it to be true.

Another study showed that cattle and sheep are a much greater risk to the trampling and accidental ingestion of ground nesting birds (Sharps et al., 2017; Hounsome, 2005).  A recent peer-reviewed study looking at bird populations inside and outside badger cull areas in South-West England found no evidence that the removal of badgers made any difference to ground-nesting bird numbers (Ward et al., 2022).

A study by DEFRA (Hounsome, 2005) on the ecological effects of badger removal during the RBCT found that “During the initial stages of the experiment to investigate the effect of badger removal on nests of ground-nesting birds it became apparent that direct damage by livestock was a source of considerable nest loss.” Agricultural intensification is often cited as a significant contributor to the decline in ground-nesting bird numbers and some studies have shown that the impact of trampling and consumption of eggs and chicks from cattle and sheep on ground-nesting birds is significant (Sharps et al., 2017; Malm et al., 2020).

Other studies have shown a significant decline in bird species attributed to agricultural intensification (British Trust for Ornithology (BTO), 2023; Fuller, 1996)

Badgers are actually omnivores and up to 70% of their diet consists of earthworms, followed by plant matter (Roper, 2010). There is no evidence that they predate on birds, bees or wasps at unsustainable levels.

And to preempt any reference to hedgehogs, hedgehog numbers have declined at dramatic rates in areas all over the UK, including those in areas with fewer badgers than estimated in cull areas (Wembridge, 2011, Williams et al., 2018). Badgers and hedgehogs have coexisted for thousands of years without human interference. When it comes to taking action for hedgehogs, we need to look closer to home and provide good habitat cover and wild areas with good connectivity between gardens and farm lands. 

Not only are native badgers not harmful to other native species, they are actually beneficial, being known as ecosystem engineers. By creating opportunities for a wide range of pollinating insects, birds, and mammals, badgers support biodiversity and ecosystem health across their native range (Kurek et al., 2022).

Badgers have lived harmoniously with the rest of Britain’s native species for over 250,000 years.    

Badgers in our space

The reason there are badgers in urban areas is because they are being systematically pushed out of the countryside where they prefer to live by persecution and over-development.  We would value your help in speaking up to make Space for Badgers where they are happiest.

We do hope that helps to clear up the misinformation and misconception around the badger. Given your influential status we do hope that you could share this information widely with your network and help us to better protect badgers.  

We have also attached a copy of our Tackling bTB Together report that we published last year, that you might find of interest.  Using an evidence-based approach it shows how we see the answer to tackling bTB not in framing the badger, but in asking for truthful, honest conversations across all stakeholders.  

This united front is what will help lead to the political change to truly drive down this cattle disease.