Policy paper

Annex B: summary of 2022 badger control compliance monitoring

Published 5 April 2023

Applies to England

Background

Natural England is the competent authority regarding the granting of badger control licences for the purpose of preventing the spread of bovine tuberculosis in cattle. It is responsible for conducting visits of cage-trapping and controlled shooting contractors to monitor compliance with licence conditions and the published Best Practice Guides. The methodology and rationale used for compliance monitoring were the same as those published in December 2017^{[footnote 1]}.

Following the success of the monitoring approach adopted for controlled shooting contractors since 2017, Natural England focused its resources to monitor:

• approximately 10% of controlled shooting contractors operating in Areas 62 to 74 and 10% of 2022-trained contractors operating in Year 2+ areas (that is, Areas 33 to 61)
• existing contractors by exception in Areas 33 to 61

Monitoring of cage-trapping contractors is normally conducted at a lower level to reflect the fact that this is a long-established method of catching badgers, the humaneness of which has been previously investigated^{[footnote 2]}. However, in 2022, higher than normal monitoring levels were achieved due to Year 1 companies occupying smaller areas than in previous years, which required the deployment of fewer contractors.

Field monitoring

Natural England deployed 16 Monitors to conduct compliance monitoring visits of contractors licensed to carry out controlled shooting of free-ranging badgers and cage-trapping and dispatch of badgers. The number of compliance monitoring visits conducted in each control area is presented in Table 1. Percentage figures are based on the number of compliance visits conducted as a proportion of the total contractors active for that method

Table 1: Number of compliance monitoring visits conducted by Natural England Monitors during 2022 badger control operations, within Areas 62-72

Area	Controlled shooting	Cage-trapping
Area 62- Buckinghamshire	10 (22.7%)	9 (22.0%)
Area 63- Cornwall	3 (27.3%)	3 (16.7%)
Area 64- Cornwall	3 (21.4%)	4 (28.6%)
Area 65- Derbyshire	12 (25.5%)	7 (35.0%)
Area 66- Devon	6 (35.3%)	6 (18.8%)
Area 67- Hampshire	9 (25.0%)	5 (33.3%)
Area 68- Northamptonshire	17 (30.4%)	13 (29.5%)
Area 69- Oxfordshire	5 (20.0%)	5 (16.7%)
Area 70- Somerset	5 (31.3%)	3 (42.9%)
Area 71- Warwickshire	9 (23.7%)	7 (35.0%)
Area 72- Warwickshire	17 (24.3%)	17 (31.5%)

In addition, 6 compliance monitoring visits were conducted on 2022-trained active controlled shooting contractors within Year 2+ Areas (Areas 33-61). This represented 25% of those trained and active in 2022.

For operational and training purposes, there was 1 ‘by exception’ monitoring visit conducted of existing contractors in Year 2+ Areas.

Contractor compliance and competency

The levels of compliance and competency of controlled shooting and cage-trapping contractors observed in the field by Monitors are presented in Table 2. Percentage figures are based on the number of criteria assigned to each level as a proportion of the total criteria assessed during compliance monitoring visits.

• Level 1 – demonstrates the ability to execute all indicated tasks without guidance.
• Level 2 – acceptably demonstrates the ability to execute most of the required tasks with little or no guidance. While sufficiently competent, they could benefit from continued intermittent oversight.
• Level 3 – does not acceptably demonstrate the ability to execute the necessary tasks. Requires a further compliance monitoring visit or would benefit from additional training or supervised practice.

Table 2: Compliance with licence conditions and the best practice guides by contractors monitored by Natural England during 2022 badger control operations

Level	Controlled shooting criteria	Cage-trapping criteria
Level 1	96.7%	89.2%
Level 2	3.2%	10.8%
Level 3	<0.1%*	0.0%

* 2 level 3s during a controlled shooting visit

Controlled shooting observations

Monitors were equipped with suitable viewing equipment to observe shooting events^{[footnote 3]}; remaining close enough to the contractor team to enable a clear view of the target species prior to and post shot. Observations that were noted in the field included numbers of badgers shot at and retrieved (including the number of shots taken for each badger), numbers of badgers shot at but missed and numbers of badgers shot at but wounded and lost.

Where Monitors observed a ‘shot at and retrieved’ shooting event, they noted badger reaction to the shot and assigned this to one of five distinct categories:

• ‘Dropped to the shot’
• ‘Reacted to the shot, moved a short distance and dropped’
• ‘Reacted to the shot, follow-up shot(s) taken and dropped’
• ‘Reacted to the shot, moved a short distance, follow-up shot(s) taken and dropped’
• ‘Presumed wounded and lost but carcase found in the next morning’

To make sure that Monitors could differentiate between a ‘miss’ and ‘a wounded and lost’ shot at but not retrieved shooting event, the following information was recorded on the circumstances of the shot:

• Distance of the badger when the shot was taken? This will have an influence on where the bullet actually strikes relative to the Point of Aim (POA). For example, if the badger is within 20 metres of the contractor, the bullet strike will be slightly low of the POA on a rifle that is zeroed at 70 metres.
• Any audible bullet strike? If a bullet is on target, there will be an audible ‘thud’ or ‘plop’. A bullet that is off target will have little (if any) audible strike when entering an earth backstop.
• Any reaction to the shot? A badger that has been hit will exhibit some sort of reaction whether this is dropping to the ground, jumping forward or into the air, spinning round.
• Gait of badger when it left the site? A badger that has been hit will usually exhibit an abnormal gait when leaving the site.
• Any blood, hair or bone at the strike site? An absence of any of these signs suggests that the shot was a miss.
• Any blood along the exit trail of the badger? An absence of blood suggests a miss.
• Any badgers shot immediately prior to and/or post the shot at but not retrieved event? This will give an indication as to zero of the rifle i.e. its accuracy.

Monitors recorded data on 122 shooting events during 2022 Badger Control Operations. The outcome of each observed shooting event is presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Number and outcome of shooting events observed by Natural England Monitors during 2022 badger control operations

Observed shooting events	122
Badgers shot at and retrieved	114 (93.4%)
Dropped to the shot	88
Reacted to the shot, moved a short distance and dropped	10
Reacted to the shot, follow-up shot(s) taken and dropped	10
Reacted to shot, moved short distance, follow-up shot(s) taken and dropped	6
Presumed wounded and lost but carcase found in the next morning	0
Badgers shot at but not retrieved	8 (6.6%)
Shot at but missed	8
Shot at but wounded and lost	0

In addition to the shooting events observed by Natural England, contractors self-reported any events where badgers were shot at but not retrieved. The outcome of these shooting events is presented in Table 4. Following the same methodology used since 2017, Natural England investigated each wounded and lost event to ascertain the circumstances surrounding these.

Table 4: Outcome of self-reported shooting events in Areas 33 to 72 during 2022 badger control operations

Total shooting events	22,897
Badgers shot at and retrieved	22,549 (98.5%)
Badgers shot at but not retrieved	348 (1.5%)
Shot at but missed	305
Shot at but wounded and lost	43

There were no third-party reports of dead badgers having been found with suspected firearms injury.

Cage-trapping observations

Monitors conducted compliance monitoring visits on 79 cage-trapping contractors who exhibited a high level of compliance with licence conditions and the Best Practice Guide (see Table 2). A small number of anomalies with trapping technique (not compliance related) were observed during monitoring but these were addressed through mentoring support from the relevant companies.

1. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/670226/badger-control-monitoring-summary-2017-annexb.pdf. ↩

2. Woodroffe R. et al. (2005) Welfare of badgers (Meles meles) subjected to culling: patterns of trap-related injuries. Animal Welfare, 14, 11-17. ↩

3. A ‘shooting event’ refers to all shots taken in the attempted dispatch of one badger. Each event results in either a badger that is ‘shot at and retrieved’ or ‘shot at but not retrieved’. ↩