Red List of South African Species

Alternatively, Explore species
| National Red List categories | Partners |
Least Concern (LC)
Assessors: Colleen Begg Keith Begg John Power Derek van der Merwe Gerrie Camacho Carly Cowell Emmanuel Do Linh San
Contributors: Alexei Abramov Matthew Child Joan Isham William Duckworth Samantha Page-Nicholson
Reviewers: Colleen Begg Keith Begg John Power Derek van der Merwe Gerrie Camacho Carly Cowell Emmanuel Do Linh San

Rationale

This species has a wide habitat tolerance, a catholic diet and a large area of occupancy (AOO) in the assessment region. A range expansion has been recorded over the past 10 years in at least one South African province. Although persecution – both direct for beehive damage and poultry losses, and incidental as bycatch in damage-causing animal controls – is ongoing and suspected to be resulting in localised declines, such threats can and are being mitigated by active and successful conservation projects and education programmes. Hence, there is no evidence for, nor any reason to suspect an overall population decline, and at least one threat has lessened. The estimated population size ranges from a minimum of 741 (which is improbable due to their wide occurrence on protected areas and game farms) to a likely 13,200 mature individuals, which exceeds the threshold for criterion D. In view of the above, we down-list this species to Least Concern, but caution that the species may warrant re-assessment and listing in a threatened category if evidence of a decline or of increasing threat level is produced.

Regional population effects: There is a broad front on South Africa’s northern borders of Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe and Mozambique, from whence there is likely to be contiguous populations with all these countries. The species is contiguous with the Botswana population and sightings are frequent along the Nossob riverbed in Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP). It is suspected that there is immigration from neighbouring countries into the assessment region, especially as the dispersal ability is good and Honey Badgers cover large daily distances in search of food (Begg et al. 2005b). This is not solid enough evidence to warrant a strong rescue effect, but it is of moderate significance.

Distribution

The Honey Badger has an extensive historical range which extends through most of sub-Saharan Africa from the Western Cape, South Africa, to southern Morocco and southwestern Algeria, and outside of Africa through Arabia, Iran and western Asia to Middle Asia and the Indian peninsula (Proulx et al. 2016).

Within the assessment region, the species occurs in South Africa and the Lowveld regions of Swaziland (Monadjem 1998), but is absent from Lesotho (Lynch 1994; Proulx et al. 2016). In South Africa, Honey Badgers historically occurred in all provinces except the Free State (Lynch 1983). The reason for the absence of badgers in this area remains unknown, but it is speculated that either this is a result of localised extinctions from hunting or, more likely, that badgers have never occurred in these parts of the country because of the suboptimal, open-steppe nature of this region (Begg 2001b). A single record was received from the eastern border of the Free State during a critical assessment of the Badger Friendly Labelling (BFL) Project (Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009), but it remains unclear whether this represents range expansion, lack of surveying in the area, or spill-over from suitable habitats in the KwaZulu-Natal Province across the Drakensberg range.

However, there appears to have been a range expansion throughout the North West Province, largely onto the Highveld grasslands, to the north of the Free State (Power 2014). Honey Badgers were absent from the southern Highveld grasslands during the 1970s (Rautenbach 1982), and even early 2000s (Friedmann & Daly 2004; Skinner & Chimimba 2005). Based on camera-trapping evidence, they have since been found to occur in this area (Power 2014). This suggests either an increase in abundance or re-colonisation of areas, although another explanation is that observer effort might have increased due to the use of camera-trapping. One cub was found near Ventersdorp, and this thus suggests that breeding has occurred too (Power 2014). The species was recorded at the SA Lombard Nature Reserve in 2012 (see Power 2013), a reserve which has had extensive carnivore-related research and trapping done on it before 1994, with no mention of this species. In the arid western parts of the North West Province, farmer questionnaire reports of the same administrative districts (Vryburg & Mafikeng) suggest an increase from c. 8% occurrence during the 1970s (Lloyd & Millar 1983) to 40% in 2012 (Power 2013). It has been hypothesised that increased woody cover, due to climate change-induced bush encroachment onto the Grassland Biome, has facilitated the greater occurrence of this species (Power 2014). Because Honey Badgers are known to be able to swim (Kingdon 1997), it remains to be seen whether they ever have forded the Vaal River to enter the Free State.

Honey Badgers have recently been recorded from the Cradle of Humankind in Gauteng (Kuhn 2014). In the Northern Cape, there appears to have been range stability since the 1970s, while the old Transkei (eastern parts of the Eastern Cape) always had a low prevalence of this species (see Stuart 1981; Lloyd & Millar 1983). For example, there is only one record from Lynch (1989) in the northeastern Eastern Cape from the Jamestown District. This is still reflected currently, as even in protected areas of the old Transkei, a mammalian survey carried out in 2003 showed no evidence for this species’ occurrence (Hayward et al. 2005). Similarly, since the last assessment (Rowe-Rowe 1992; Friedmann & Daly 2004), there seems to be a decline in occurrence of the species in southern KwaZulu-Natal, which may be genuine or an artefact of no recent records being available. If the former, this could be cause for concern. Begg (2001b) reported that the badger populations in Mpumalanga and Limpopo, the Kalahari in the Northern Cape as well as the Western Cape’s coastal lowlands support the largest concentrations of Honey Badgers in South Africa, which was corroborated by Irlich and Davies-Mostert (2009).

Population trend

Trend

Honey Badgers are considered to be rare or to exist at low densities across most of their range (Begg et al. 2013). Densities based on night counts have been estimated at 0.1 individual / km² in the Serengeti National Park, Tanzania (Waser 1980) and 0.03 adult / km² in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) (Begg 2001a). There is unfortunately no density data from the mesic savannahs, such as Kruger National Park (KNP), and it is unknown at this stage as to which areas have higher densities, i.e. KNP vs KTP. Given these density estimates (0.10–0.03 individual / km2), and an estimated 200,000 km2 total AOO across the assessment region, the overall population is between 6,000 and 20,000 individuals, which is likely to be comprised of 3,960–13,200 mature (assuming that 66% of the population is mature, sensu Friedmann & Daly 2004). At the very minimum, the AOO is 37,416 km2 based on confirmed presence in national parks across South Africa (Table 2), which yields a population size of 1,122–3,742 individuals (741–2,470 mature). Thus, the estimated population size ranges from a minimum of 741 to a more likely 13,200 mature individuals. This range encompasses the previous assessment estimate of 4,000 individuals (2,600 mature) using the same area estimate and assuming a 50 km2 home range for breeding pairs (Friedmann & Daly 2004). Further density estimates, both inside and outside protected areas, are required to more systematically estimate population size.

We suspect that the population is stable or increasing given the stable or increasing AOO of the species since the last assessment. Additionally, retaliatory killings from beekeepers have declined since 2001 (Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009; EWT unpubl. data). Although Honey Badgers may be experiencing local declines outside of protected areas due to accidental persecution or from roads, in some cases the reverse is true. For example, SANParks has found more animals outside of the Agulhas National Park than inside. It is thought that there may be better scavenging opportunities on farms than in the park.

Threats

As their scientific name suggests (melis means honey and voro means devour), conflict has occurred between Honey Badgers and beekeepers as they share a common interest. Beehive damage by Honey Badgers is a significant threat to beekeeping productivity, particularly around protected areas. Honey Badgers have been persecuted by farmers since the early 1800s as they were classified as “vermin” or problem animals. Begg (2001b) found that Honey Badgers were directly causing in excess of R500,000 worth of damage per annum in the Western Cape and Mpumalanga alone. Thus, the main threat to Honey Badgers is direct persecution through the use of, for example, steel-jawed traps and poisons, by apiculturists and small livestock farmers throughout their range. They are also indirectly killed by non-selective control programmes targeting other species, such as Black-backed Jackal and Caracal (Caracal caracal) (Begg et al. 2013). Considering that Honey Badgers are scavengers as well, they are likely to become victims of poisoning. There is evidence to suggest that they have gone locally extinct in many areas due to poisoning (C.M. Begg & K.S. Begg pers. obs. 2006). This type of anthropogenic mortality may not necessarily be counteracted by natural recolonisation as they have a slow recolonisation rate and currently only a small percentage of South African nature reserves are large enough to sustain viable subpopulations of these animals, leaving the larger part of South Africa’s Honey Badger population unprotected (Begg 2001b; Table 2). Compounding this, Honey Badgers also have low natural reproduction rates. There is generally only one cub per litter which reaches independence at the age of 12–16 months, and cub mortality is 47% (Begg 2001a; Begg et al. 2005a), This, together with large home range sizes (e.g. Begg et al. 2005b) suggest that these mustelids live at low densities and are therefore vulnerable to even modest levels of persecution. A minor threat to this species is collisions on roads (W. Collinson unpubl. data), especially while scavenging on other roadkill.

Uses and trade

Honey Badger body parts (particularly paws, skin and organs) are commonly used locally in traditional medicine because of the species’ reputation for fearlessness and tenacity, which may be a particular problem in KwaZulu-Natal (Ngwenya 2001). Honey Badgers may be increasingly used in the bushmeat trade due to the decline in other more favoured bushmeat species (Colyn et al. 2004; Begg et al. 2013).

They are also hunted as trophy animals (average of 16 ± 6 per year exported from South Africa between 2002 and 2012; CITES trade database) because they are seen as tenacious and tough animals to hunt. Interest in trophy hunting this species has come to the fore in the Limpopo Province where a number of permits have been requested for this purpose. One permit has been issued to hunt this species in the North West Province in 2015 (R.J. Power unpubl. data), and there has been a surge in interest to hunt similar small carnivores, so this trend may increase, but needs to be highly regulated.

In the western parts of the North West Province, the increase in game ranches (Power 2014), has seen a 32% increase in occurrence there based on farmer questionnaires (Power 2013), which points to the benefit of habitat availability in this venture. However, more research needs to be conducted to determine the net effect of wildlife ranches and game farms on this species, as they may still be persecuted indirectly as part of damage-causing animal controls (Stuart 1981; Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009; Lindsey et al. 2009; EWT unpubl. data). There is no actual ranching of the species itself.

Conservation

Honey Badgers are found in many protected areas throughout the assessment region (Table 2). In the North West Province alone, Honey Badgers occur in 7–8 protected areas (confirmation required for the 8th protected area), within a total area of 1,390–1,700 km2 (Power 2014).

However, Honey Badgers are persecuted by apiculturists for the damage caused to commercial honey production. The South African beekeeping industry contributes an estimated R3.2 billion to South Africa’s agricultural economy through pollination alone, with an additional R100 million through honey and bee products and creates direct employment for about 3,000 people and indirectly for 300,000 to 500,000 people (Begg 2001b; Allsopp et al. 2008; NAMC 2008). Begg (2001b) and Begg and Begg (2002) showed that hive damage could be reduced from 24% to 1% with the help of hive-protection methods; for example, by securing beehives 1 m or more above the ground on a stand or trestle, thereby minimizing conflicts between Honey Badgers and apiculturists. Begg (2001b) also highlighted that it was economically more viable for beekeepers to be “Badger Friendly”.

Thus, the Badger–Beekeeper Extension Programme (BBEP) was established in 2002 to educate beekeepers on effective beehive protection measures and Honey Badger conservation, as well as public awareness on the topic (Isham et al. 2005). As part of the project, a “Badger Friendly Label” (BFL) was developed. The purpose of this project is to assist South African beekeepers in preventing damage by Honey Badgers to beehives by the use of initiatives that prevent Honey Badgers from damaging hives – a non-lethal control method. This prevents the use of other lethal control methods such as poison, gin traps and killer traps that have a negative impact on Honey Badger and other carnivore populations. This is a long-term solution that secures valuable habitat for Honey Badger populations on farmland in South Africa. Hence, the label was a voluntary incentive to be used only by beekeepers that effectively protected their beehives and thus removed the need to harm Honey Badgers. Furthermore, this label was used to indicate to the public which honey products were produced by Badger Friendly practices and thus provided leverage for consumers to put pressure on the beekeeping industry to change their ways. The labels were sold at a small cost to beekeepers that had signed a declaration copy and which after an inspection of their apiary sites were accredited with Badger Friendly Status” (Isham et al. 2005). The BFL Project has been running since 2003, and it has become routine for many South African citizens to purchase such labelled products.

Isham et al. (2005) found that of the protection methods implemented, approximately 90% of the beekeepers protecting their hives made use of methods that raised the hives off the ground, while only about 10% used on‐ground protection methods. It was confirmed that a hive in good condition, securely strapped to a stand of at least 1 m (Photo 3) reduced the chance of badger access significantly.

During a critical assessment of the BFL project (Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009), a total of 46 records of hive damage caused by badgers, making up 26 Quarter Degree Grid (QDGs) squares, were collected. This is significantly fewer when compared to a total of 179 records of hive damage in 70 QDGs collected by Begg (2001b). According to the beekeepers, badgers are not the most severe threat to honey production anymore. Instead, vandalism and theft are the most severe threats, as they indirectly decrease the number of available sites where beekeepers can keep their beehives. The threat of direct persecution for beehive depredation is thus inferred to have lessened over the past decade. Reports of beehive damage have declined between 2001 and 2009, by an estimated 66% through the work of conservationists in promoting hive protection methods (Begg 2001b; Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009). Of the 62 beekeepers audited by Irlich and Davies-Mostert (2009), only 16 sustained hive damage from Honey Badgers, while 46 did not sustain any damage since protecting their hives despite high badger activity in the regions. Similarly, while 64% of beekeepers listed badgers as the top threat to productivity in Begg’s (2001b) report, only 12% did so in 2009. Of those who listed badgers as a threat, 85% said that the impact of these mustelids was negligible compared to only 33% in 2001 (Begg 2001b; Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009). During the course of this assessment (2008–2009) only a single report was received of a badger being killed by beekeepers in Mpumalanga (Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009). Thus, the overall consensus was that the problem of Honey Badgers raiding beehives is decreasing in intensity or, at worst, staying constant, with no beekeepers mentioning that the conflict was increasing in intensity or frequency of hive damage. This is likely due to the effective protection methods being implemented by beekeepers across the country (Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009). It is possible that a few beekeepers are still killing badgers without reporting these cases. However, the beekeeping community is a small one and beekeepers are very aware of what fellow beekeepers are doing, and therefore a majority of incidences are likely to have been reported.

More recently, a 2016 Badger Friendly Audit was conducted by D. van der Merwe who is the Carnivore Conflict Mitigation Officer of the Endangered Wildlife Trust. The audits took place during March and April 2016 at a number of beekeepers’ properties in Gauteng, Northern Cape, Eastern Cape, Western Cape and Limpopo provinces. A total of 27 beekeepers were audited and 26 of them complied with the criteria in order to obtain the BFL (EWT unpubl. data). The project has been a success in that the majority of the beekeepers who were audited and who suffer damage due to Honey Badgers are still protecting their hives effectively against badgers, even if the beekeepers are not making use of the BFL. In areas of high conflict between beekeepers and Honey Badgers it is financially more beneficial to protect hives rather than persecute Honey Badgers. According to the lack of reports of badgers being persecuted by beekeepers, it can thus be interpreted that the project has continued to be effective in mitigating badger killing by beekeepers since 2009. Many of the beekeepers are using their own methods to prevent damage, which includes putting the hives into large cages and modifying the standard raised platforms. The beekeepers in the Western Cape and Limpopo seem to be having the largest amount of damage, while some of the honey farmers in the Northern Cape audited have never seen or have never had damage from Honey Badgers at all. One of the most interesting findings during this audit was the apparition and increase of badger–beekeeper conflict in the Oudtshoorn area. Over the last three years, all beekeepers in the area have had to protect their hives as it was becoming financially unviable to farm with bees (EWT unpubl. data). Overall, the 2016 audit confirms that the BFL project has decreased the number of Honey Badgers being killed by beekeepers as a result of effective hive protection methods, and can thus be considered a genuine conservation success.

However, more work needs to be done to increase consumer awareness of Badger Friendly products and thus to incentivise beekeepers to continue with the project. In 2009, only 2.8% of consumers said that their first choice was whether the honey displayed a Badger Friendly label and the number of stickers sold to retailers declined from 2005 to 2008 (Irlich & Davies-Mostert 2009). Clearly, more work needs to be done to raise the public profile of the label and increase consumer buy-in. The retail of Badger Friendly honey is an intervention similar to “green labelling” that holds sway at the level of the consumer. To increase the number of consumers buying Badger Friendly honey, additional intensive consumer awareness should be undertaken. It would be beneficial to involve members of the public nationally in using consumer power to support the initiative, as well as contributing their data on Honey Badger sightings and become engaged with badger conservation in general. This could be carried out in conjunction with more public awareness and social marketing on badgers and the BFL project.

Recommendations for land managers and practitioners:
  • Monitoring should be established to measure local subpopulation trends. For example, North West Province intends to monitor subpopulations of this species through camera-trapping (see Power 2014).
  • Continue to encourage beehive protection methods. The average cost of beehive damage is R950, while beekeepers protecting their hives against badgers can expect to pay anywhere in the range of R1 up to R650 per hive (Isham et al. 2005). Beekeepers must be informed via the media and popular magazines (for example, Farmers Weekly) of the most reliable and cost-effective measures for protecting beehives.
  • All apiaries situated within biosphere reserves or along the borders of protected areas must be adequately protected, as conflict with Honey Badgers is inevitable. This should be mandatory.

Research priorities:
  • Intensive research into the current distribution of Honey Badgers, together with possible estimates of their abundance (both inside and outside of protected areas) is required to successfully address distributional changes in the future. To carry out such an investigation will prove to be time-consuming, and thus citizen science schemes (for example, through social media) should be established to aid with data collection.
  • Quantifying long-term population trends in different biomes and land-use areas.
  • Trends in the numbers of animals killed by farmers.
  • Trends in the numbers of animals accidentally killed in traps intended for other target species.
  • Home range size for different vegetation types (particularly Fynbos, Karoo and Renosterveld types) so as to be able to evaluate space requirements for viable populations at the local scale.

A wealth of information has been obtained from one particular ecosystem, the arid Kalahari savannahs (see Mills 1997; Begg 2001a; Begg et al. 2003a,b, 2005a,b, 2016a,b, in press), in the western part of South Africa. The following biogeographical areas need to be focussed on, should there be such a further need:

  • Spatial and population ecology in mesic savannah ecosystems.
  • Spatial and population ecology in Fynbos ecosystems.
Encouraged citizen actions:
  • Report sightings on virtual museum platforms (for example, iSpot and MammalMAP). Priority areas include southern KwaZulu-Natal and the far Eastern Cape Province. Camera-trappers should strategically deploy their camera traps in pursuit of this species and upload their records to bona fide data repositories.
  • Only purchase Badger Friendly honey. Contact the Endangered Wildlife Trust (ewt@ewt.org.za) for further information.

References 

[@book{275,
 address = {Cambridge},
 author = {Skinner, J.D. and Chimimba, C.T.},
 publisher = {Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom},
 title = {The Mammals of the Southern African Subregion},
 year = {2005}
}
,@book{570,
 address = {Parkview, South Africa},
 author = {Friedmann, Y. and Daly, B.},
 publisher = {Conservation Breeding Specialist Group (SSC/IUCN) and Endangered Wildlife Trust},
 title = {Red Data Book of the Mammals of South Africa: A Conservation Assessment},
 year = {2004}
}
,@article{5228,
 author = {Lynch, C.D.},
 journal = {Navorsing van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein},
 pages = {177--241},
 title = {The mammals of Lesotho},
 volume = {10},
 year = {1994}
}
,@techreport{5228,
 author = {Power, R.J.},
 institution = {Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation & Tourism, North West Provincial Government, Mahikeng},
 title = {The distribution and status of mammals in the North West Province},
 year = {2014}
}
,@article{5228,
 author = {Monadjem, A.},
 journal = {Koedoe},
 pages = {45--59},
 title = {Distributional patterns and conservation status of mammals of Swaziland, southern Africa},
 volume = {41},
 year = {1998}
}
,@article{16484,
 author = {Lloyd PH, Millar JCG},
 journal = {Bontebok},
 pages = {1--49},
 title = {A questionnaire survey (1969-1974) of some of the larger mammals of the Cape Province},
 volume = {3},
 year = {1983}
}
,@article{19529,
 author = {Lynch C.D.},
 journal = {Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein },
 pages = {1--116},
 title = {The mammals of the north-eastern Cape Province},
 volume = {25},
 year = {1989}
}
,@inbook{41382,
 address = {Washington, D. C., USA},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Order Insectivora},
 editor = {Heim de Balsac, H. and Meester, J.},
 pages = {1--29},
 publisher = {Smithsonian Institution Press},
 title = {The Mammals of Africa: An Identification Manual},
 year = {1977}
}
,@article{41702,
 author = {Stuart, C.T.},
 journal = {Bontebok},
 pages = {1--58},
 title = {Notes on the mammalian carnivores of the Cape Province, South Africa},
 volume = {1},
 year = {1981}
}
,@inbook{41702,
 address = {London, UK},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {<i>Genetta tigrina</i> Cape Genet},
 editor = {Gaubert, P.},
 pages = {247--249},
 publisher = {Bloomsbury},
 title = {The Mammals of Africa. V. Carnivores, Pangolins, Equids and Rhinoceroses},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{136713,
 author = {Lynch, C.D.},
 journal = {Navorsinge van die Nasionale Museum Bloemfontein},
 pages = {1--218},
 title = {The mammals of the Orange Free State, South Africa},
 volume = {18},
 year = {1983}
}
,@article{111935780,
 author = {Rautenbach, I. L.},
 journal = {Ecoplan monograph, N.S. Supplemento},
 pages = {111--211},
 title = {Mammals of the Transvaal},
 volume = {1},
 year = {1982}
}
,@inbook{112168517,
 address = {Cape Town, South Africa.},
 author = {},
 booktitle = {Striped mouse <i>Rhabdomys pumilio</i>},
 editor = {De Graaf, G.},
 publisher = {Struik Publishers},
 title = {The Complete Book of Southern African Mammals},
 year = {1997}
}
,@article{219,
 author = {Lindsey PA, Romanach SS, Davies-Mostert HT.},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {99--105},
 title = {The importance of conservancies for enhancing the value of game ranch land for large mammal conservation in southern Africa.},
 volume = {277},
 year = {2009}
}
,@book{1793,
 address = {Pietermaritzburg, South Africa},
 author = {Rowe-Rowe, D.T.},
 publisher = {Natal Parks Board},
 title = {The Carnivores of Natal},
 year = {1992}
}
,@article{3755,
 author = {Smithers, R.H.N.},
 journal = {National Museums of Rhodesia, Museum Memoir},
 pages = {1--340},
 title = {The mammals of Botswana},
 volume = {4},
 year = {1971}
}
,@article{4143,
 author = {Hayward MW, White RM, Mabandla KM, Bukeye P},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 pages = {117--124},
 title = {Mammalian fauna of indigenous forest in the Transkei region of South Africa: an overdue survey},
 volume = {35},
 year = {2005}
}
,@book{4221,
 address = {San Diego, California, USA},
 author = {Kingdon, J.},
 publisher = {Academic Press},
 title = {The Kingdon Field Guide to African Mammals},
 year = {1997}
}
,@article{10276,
 author = {Kuhn, B.F.},
 journal = {South African Journal of Wildlife Research},
 number = {1},
 pages = {95--98},
 title = {A preliminary assessment of the carnivore community outside Johannesburg, South Africa},
 volume = {44},
 year = {2014}
}
,@techreport{12765,
 author = {Ngwenya MP},
 institution = {Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife},
 title = {Implications of the medicinal animal trade for nature conservation in KwaZulu-Natal},
 year = {2001}
}
,@article{15642,
 author = {Waser, P.M.},
 journal = {African Journal of Ecology},
 pages = {167--185},
 title = {Small nocturnal carnivores: ecological studies in the Serengeti},
 volume = {18},
 year = {1980}
}
,@techreport{21691,
 address = {Mahikeng, South Africa},
 author = {Power RJ.},
 institution = {Department of Economic Development, Environment, Conservation & Tourism, North West Provincial Government},
 title = {Dr Ruth Segomotsi Mompata Mammal Report},
 year = {2013}
}
,@article{41590,
 author = {Colyn, M., Dufour, S., Condé, P.C. and Van Rompaey, H.},
 journal = {Small Carnivore Conservation},
 pages = {15--18},
 title = {The importance of small carnivores in forest bushmeat hunting in the Classified Forest of Diecké, Guinea},
 volume = {31},
 year = {2004}
}
,@article{41622,
 author = {Bird, T.L.F. and Mateke, C.W.},
 journal = {Small Carnivore Conservation},
 pages = {47--59},
 title = {A preliminary survey of the presence and distribution of small carnivores in the Lower Zambezi Protected Area Complex, Zambia},
 volume = {48},
 year = {2013}
}
,@phdthesis{41629,
 author = {Begg, C.M.},
 school = {University of Pretoria},
 title = {Feeding ecology and social organization of honey badgers <i>Mellivora capensis</i>, in the southern Kalahari},
 year = {2001}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Begg, K.S. and Begg, C.M.},
 journal = {The Open Country},
 pages = {25--37},
 title = {The conflict between beekeepers and honey badgers in South Africa: a western Cape perspective},
 volume = {4},
 year = {2002}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Begg, C.M., Begg, K.S., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L.},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {17--22},
 title = {Life history variables of an atypical mustelid, the honey badger <i>Mellivora capensis</i>)},
 volume = {265},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Begg, C.M., Begg, K.S., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L.},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {23--35},
 title = {Spatial organization of the honey badger (<i>Mellivora capensis</i>)},
 volume = {266},
 year = {2005}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Friedmann, H.},
 journal = {Bulletin of the United States National Museum,},
 title = {The Honey-Guides},
 volume = {208},
 year = {1955}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Begg, C.M., Begg, K.S., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L.},
 journal = {Journal of Zoology},
 pages = {301--316},
 title = {Sexual and seasonal variation in the diet and foraging behaviour of a sexually dimorphic carnivore, the honey badger (<i>Mellivora capensis</i>)},
 volume = {260},
 year = {2003}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Begg, C.M., Begg, K.S., du Toit, J.T. and Mills, M.G.L.},
 journal = {Animal Behaviour},
 pages = {917--929},
 title = {Scent-marking behaviour of the honey badger, <i>Mellivora capensis</i> (Mustelidae) in the southern Kalahari},
 volume = {66},
 year = {2003}
}
,@article{41629,
 author = {Allsopp MH, De Lange WJ, Veldtman R.},
 journal = {PLoS One},
 title = {Valuing insect pollination services with cost of replacement.},
 volume = {3},
 year = {2008}
}
,@inbook{41629,
 address = {Oxford, UK.},
 author = {San  and Sato  and Belant  and Somers },
 booktitle = {Interactions between honey badgers and other predators in the southern Kalahari: intraguild predation and facilitation.},
 editor = {Begg CM, Begg KS, Do Linh San E, du Toit JT, Mills MGL},
 publisher = {Wiley-Blackwell},
 title = {Small Carnivores: Evolution, Ecology, Behaviour & Conservation},
 year = {in press}
}
,@inbook{41629,
 address = {Alberta, Canada.},
 author = {Proulx  and San },
 booktitle = {Sexual and seasonal variation in the activity patterns and time budget of honey badgers in an arid environment},
 editor = {Begg CM, Begg KS, Do Linh San E, du Toit JT, Mills MGL.},
 pages = {161–192},
 publisher = {Alpha Wildlife Publications},
 title = {Badgers: Systematics, Biology, Conservation and Research Techniques},
 year = {2016}
}
,@techreport{41629,
 address = {Johannesburg, South Africa.},
 author = {Begg KS.},
 institution = {Endangered Wildlife Trust},
 title = {Report on the conflict between beekeepers and honey badgers Mellivora capensis, with reference to their conservation status and distribution in South Africa},
 year = {2001}
}
,@techreport{41629,
 address = {Johannesburg, South Africa.},
 author = {Irlich U, Davies‐Mostert HT.},
 institution = {Endangered Wildlife Trust},
 title = {Critical Assessment of the Honey Badger Friendly Label Programme.},
 year = {2009}
}
,@techreport{41629,
 author = {Isham J, Begg KS, Begg CM.},
 institution = {Carnivore Conservation Group, Endangered Wildlife Trust.},
 title = {Honey badger and beekeeper extension programme. Final Report},
 year = {2005}
}
,@techreport{41629,
 address = {Pretoria, South Africa},
 author = {NAMC},
 institution = {National Agricultural Marketing Council},
 title = {The South African Beekeeping Industry: A Section 7 Committee Investigation. },
 year = {2008}
}
,@inbook{41629,
 address = {Alberta, Canada},
 author = {Proulx  and San },
 booktitle = {World distribution and status of badgers – A review},
 editor = {Proulx G, Abramov AV, Adams I, Jennings A, Khorozyan I, Rosalino LM, Santos-Reis M, Veron G, Do Linh San E.},
 pages = {31–116},
 publisher = {Alpha Wildlife Publications},
 title = {Badgers: Systematics, Biology, Conservation and Research Techniques.},
 year = {2016}
}
,]
Send feedback about this assessment to SANBI

Lead agencies, Partners and Funders

See the partners page