Badger hunting in Germany: A hunting-critical analysis

In Thuringia, according to the Environment Ministry, an average of around 2,500 badgers are killed annually over the long term, despite the absence of reliable scientific population data.

Both hunting associations and state authorities assume a stable population. However, conservationists such as Silvester Tamás from the Nature Conservation Association (NABU) consider this culling inappropriate and demand the removal of the badger from the hunting law.

The badger as a keystone species in the ecosystem

Badgers are nocturnal omnivores and play an important role in forest ecosystems. Through their digging activity, they loosen the soil, help disperse plant seeds, and create habitat for numerous other species with their setts. These ecological functions are scientifically well-documented and argue against blanket hunting as a 'necessity'. From NABU's perspective, there is no convincing reason to systematically reduce this wildlife population when no clear conflict situation exists.

Tradition vs. Animal Welfare: When is Recreational Hunting Legitimate?

Hunting associations argue that culling is necessary to protect ground-nesting bird species, hares and rabbits. This argument suggests that badgers are directly responsible for the decline of other wildlife populations. This view is contested, as it fails to consider that badgers are a natural component of functioning ecosystems and that under normal conditions there is no serious scientific evidence that their recreational hunting is ecologically necessary. Moreover, international debate around badger culls, such as in the United Kingdom, shows that mass culling sometimes occurs without thorough scientific evaluation and can lead to significant local population disruptions.

The hunting-critical discourse emphasizes that recreational hunting today is often less a legitimate means of wildlife regulation than an expression of cultural tradition without contemporary ethical legitimacy. Wildlife protection organizations criticize the practice as ineffective and cruel, calling instead for scientifically-based management concepts or protection from road traffic, which in Thuringia is identified as the most important mortality risk for badgers.

Wildlife Protection and Social Responsibility

From a wildlife protection perspective, media like politics must become clearer that wildlife are not objects for human recreational activity. The hunting-critical perspective argues that species like badgers must not be routinely hunted when they pose no demonstrable ecological threat. Rather, protection measures should be strengthened that address real risk factors, such as wildlife crossing aids and habitat improvement. A reflexive continuation or even expansion of badger hunting is to be rejected from both professional and ethical standpoints.

The current debate about badger hunting in Germany reflects the deeper conflict between traditional hunting practices and contemporary requirements of wildlife protection. Without robust scientific foundations for any benefit from hunting, the killing of badgers can hardly be justified. Socially and politically, there must be a reassessment of what role wildlife hunting plays today in modern environmental policy and how wildlife protection can be seriously implemented.

What is overlooked in the debate is underground hunting in setts

While hunting associations like to portray badger hunting as regular 'population management', one practice often goes unmentioned: underground hunting. This involves sending hunting dogs into fox or badger setts to drive the animals out. In reality, this frequently results in direct confrontations in narrow, dark tunnel systems, with bite injuries, fear and massive stress for both animals. This form of recreational hunting is not simply 'one method among many', but an ethical tipping point because it structurally promotes animal fighting and harassment.

This is also legally problematic. German animal welfare law prohibits training or testing animals 'for real' on another living animal, and generally prohibits inciting animals to attack each other. At the same time, the law contains a hunting exception for actions that allegedly require the 'principles of ethical hunting practice'. This exact wording acts like a free pass, although it only shifts the problem: When dog and badger meet in the burrow and a fight ensues, 'wildlife management' is no longer the focus, but avoidable suffering as a systemic consequence of a recreational practice. Expert publications on animal welfare law explicitly describe animal fights as confrontations between animals of different species, triggered or accepted by recreational hunters.

The controversy around badger hunting is thus incompletely told as long as it only revolves around shooting numbers. The decisive question is: Why is a hunting method politically tolerated where animal fighting is priced in as a risk, even though the legal guiding principle is to inflict no pain, suffering or harm on any animal without reasonable cause?

Why the recreational argument doesn't hold

Hobby hunting is often framed in public communication as 'nature conservation' or 'population regulation'. In practice, however, for many participants it is also leisure, custom and status. This is exactly where the ethical conflict arises: When killing is part of a recreational arrangement, the burden of justification shifts. Then it is not enough to claim tradition or 'stewardship', but verifiable necessity, clear goals, verifiable effectiveness and methods that minimize suffering are required.

For badger hunting, this burden of justification is particularly high. The badger is hardly used as food, it fulfills ecological functions and lives hidden. At the same time, there are hunting methods like burrow hunting where direct animal confrontations are systemically built in. Anyone who continues to rely on routine hunting under such conditions must explain why this should still be proportionate in 2026.

The debate is not decided by symbolic words like 'ecosystem protection' or 'ethical hunting', but by verifiable data, transparency and the question of whether a modern state wants to accept animal suffering as a calculated by-product of a recreational practice.

Dossier: Hunting and Animal Protection