daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,543
- Points
- 1,160
Ostrich Cull in BC, 2025
- Thread starter CBH99
- Start date
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,543
- Points
- 1,160
Retired CAF members still making a contribution 
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,094
- Points
- 1,010
The motor vehicle act in British Columbia allows the peace officers to direct the drivers to do anything they wish on a highway to prevent damage or injury to any person or property.
If “Sgt Mike Rude” was directed to cover markings and plates he would be allowed.
If “Sgt Mike Rude” was directed to cover markings and plates he would be allowed.
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 1,160
You should read the court decision from mid September. Those birds should have been put down in February. The whole region now is at risk as migratory birds are passing through that area.
Not surprisingly, there is also no evidence before the court that the remaining birds are useful for any research at all, nor are any researchers even interested in looking at them. Most certainly they have not developed any type of immunity.
I’ve put down hundreds of chickens and livestock over the years. You don’t get to fool around when it comes to these things. This whole thing has been turned into a property rights trespass annd ownership issue when in fact it is a farm owners responsibility to the public issue.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,543
- Points
- 1,160
And sometimes the Army turns out to help enforce cull orders .... before alot more people die....
United Kingdom BSE outbreak - Wikipedia
- Reaction score
- 7,156
- Points
- 1,360
For the record & for anyone interested, Universal Ostrich Farms Inc. v. Canada (Food Inspection Agency), 2025 FCA 164 attached.
Meanwhile, still waiting on The Supremes ....
Ostrich farmers awaiting Supreme Court decision get little attention from Ottawa
OTTAWA - As the Supreme Court of Canada considers whether to hear the case of a B.C. farm that's fighting to save its ostriches from a Canadian Food Inspection Agency
In case you want to follow this through The Supremes, case page here.
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 1,160
I passed by the Premier Inn yesterday and noticed there are still quite a few RCMP vehicles staying at the hotels.
If the RCMP wanted to build some relations with the local farming communities, they should search out the cabin accommodations on farms that are available. Nobody is going to bother them on another farmers farm, and these people organizing boycotts will have their asses handed to them is they go after local farms and such.
Putting that money into the community would be great for a lot of ag tourism farms who have lots of availability right now. Plus campfire ban is lifted so the coppers can relax and have a beer or go for a nice long country run or hike after shift. Fresh air, fresh food and eggs every day. Quiet and peaceful, not being stalked in the hotel parking lots by sex workers, homeless folx and thieves.
If the RCMP wanted to build some relations with the local farming communities, they should search out the cabin accommodations on farms that are available. Nobody is going to bother them on another farmers farm, and these people organizing boycotts will have their asses handed to them is they go after local farms and such.
Putting that money into the community would be great for a lot of ag tourism farms who have lots of availability right now. Plus campfire ban is lifted so the coppers can relax and have a beer or go for a nice long country run or hike after shift. Fresh air, fresh food and eggs every day. Quiet and peaceful, not being stalked in the hotel parking lots by sex workers, homeless folx and thieves.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,543
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 1,160
If I don’t have a renter I usually list the guest house on VRB, but there’s other web listing sites as well.
Booter
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,094
- Points
- 1,010
I dunno man.
All of that doesn’t seem unusual. What’s the infuriating part? It’s all frustrating for everyone but the warrant is for an area- the area is sealed off. The warrant copy being left at their residence is normal. Large warrants like this result in long hold on the property. Especially with ongoing court stuff.
They didn’t have to allow them to have access- it would actually be easier if they had not been allowed to have any access. It’s makes things substantially more complicated having those people in and out.
CFIA doesn’t have to have communication with the people. Should they? Probably. I find federal agencies that do less of this work in conflict with the public are much more likely to do this silence and authority stuff.
Seems like things should be clarified. But that cop is in the middle of it. There is a judicial order that they not be there- CFIA said they can access the house.
Warrants a warrant. Doesn’t matter who applied for it.
The idea that the warrant is incorrect is for the court proceedings. No one at the scene can fix the issue if it exists as it’s reported.
It’s all flabbergasting. Again. If it’s dangerous- it should have been urgent. This all just looks like what I expect from the government inefficiency we get in Canada.
All of that doesn’t seem unusual. What’s the infuriating part? It’s all frustrating for everyone but the warrant is for an area- the area is sealed off. The warrant copy being left at their residence is normal. Large warrants like this result in long hold on the property. Especially with ongoing court stuff.
They didn’t have to allow them to have access- it would actually be easier if they had not been allowed to have any access. It’s makes things substantially more complicated having those people in and out.
CFIA doesn’t have to have communication with the people. Should they? Probably. I find federal agencies that do less of this work in conflict with the public are much more likely to do this silence and authority stuff.
Seems like things should be clarified. But that cop is in the middle of it. There is a judicial order that they not be there- CFIA said they can access the house.
Warrants a warrant. Doesn’t matter who applied for it.
The idea that the warrant is incorrect is for the court proceedings. No one at the scene can fix the issue if it exists as it’s reported.
It’s all flabbergasting. Again. If it’s dangerous- it should have been urgent. This all just looks like what I expect from the government inefficiency we get in Canada.
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 1,160
Pretty simple. The properties described in the warrant likely include the properties immediately adjacent to the farm. It’s not that uncommon.
Also do not lose sight if the fact that none of this would be happening if the owners of the Ostrich farm hadn’t been so obstructive, which forced the court to issue such a warrant.
For further edification, on September 12 while granting the search warrant and issuing a decision, the Courts summarized and agreed with the state of affairs at the farm (I’m copying and pasting this.)
I would note the Supreme Court of Canada appeal does not challenge any of the above.
The question before the Court is this: “Has the CFIA had reasonably exercised its authority in the circumstances of this case and that its Stamping Out policy on is lawful”.
The concern expressed by the CFIA, the Federal Court and the Federal Court if Appeal concerning the stay is this:
“[60] Indeed, I am of the view that granting a further stay, as requested by the appellant, would likely invite similar applications for stays from individuals or corporations whose poultry operations are subjected to a notice to dispose under the Act. As noted at paragraph 29 of the Judgment, this would have the practical effect of suspending the CFIA’s application of the HPAI 2022 ERP, including the Stamping-out policy, which this Court emphatically upheld as a reasonable exercise of the CFIA’s authority under the Act to protect the health of animals and humans and to preserve Canada’s ability to export its poultry products. Such an outcome could seriously threaten the CFIA’s ability to discharge its protective mandate under the Act.
[61] To assess the magnitude of the harm to the public interest posed by the granting of a further stay and the balance of convenience, I turn to the evidence adduced by the parties.
[62] I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that there is a high likelihood that the entire area to which the appellant’s ostriches have access is contaminated with active HPAI virus and that wild birds, which are prime natural reservoirs and vectors for the spread of HPAI, enjoy unrestricted access to the premises. Moreover, I am satisfied that the appellant’s principals have failed to prevent interactions between their ostriches and wild birds. I find that these conditions create a high level of risk of transmission of what scientists have determined is a very virulent virus with enhanced pathogenicity which, as shown by outbreaks of that virus in the United States, can inflict severe harm on poultry and infect and harm humans. I find that these conditions also produce an increased risk of new re-assortments of HPAI virus, some of which may be more adaptable to mammals, including humans.
[63] Moreover, I find that this high level of risk of transmission is increasing with the Fall migration of wild birds and that HPAI has historically substantially impacted the poultry industry in British Columbia in the Fall and Winter periods. Whether for 30 days pending filing of the appellant’s application for leave or for 3 to 6 months pending disposition of that application, the appellant is seeking to stay the application of the HPAI 2022 ERP during a period of time where an already high level of risk of transmission of HPAI is increasing.
[64] I am not satisfied that the appellant’s undertaking to “maintain all current biosecurity and quarantine measures without reductions or modifications” will “ensure that all regulatory objectives” of the CFIA are protected because, by failing to address the significant likelihood of HPAI contamination of the farm environment, unrestricted access to that environment by wild birds and the interaction between the ostriches and wild birds, it does not eliminate the high level of risk of transmission of HPAI and the risk of new virus re-assortments.
[65] I also find that the CFIA’s inability to eliminate the HPAI outbreak on the appellant’s farm, due to the stays granted over 8 months of litigation before the federal courts, has required the CFIA to maintain a control zone in British Columbia, significantly harming the poultry industry in that province by preventing the export of poultry produced in or transiting from British Columbia. I am satisfied that ordering the stay requested by the appellant would cause that industry further harm.
[66] I find that an additional stay of up to 6 months, as requested by the appellant, would jeopardize Canada’s access, for its poultry and poultry products, to the export markets of its most important trading partners, including the European Union and the United States. Under negotiated zoning arrangements with these countries, Canada can export poultry from outside HPAI control zones, but these arrangements are predicated on Canada’s application of the Stamping-out Policy in the control zones (Judgment at para. 95).
Also do not lose sight if the fact that none of this would be happening if the owners of the Ostrich farm hadn’t been so obstructive, which forced the court to issue such a warrant.
For further edification, on September 12 while granting the search warrant and issuing a decision, the Courts summarized and agreed with the state of affairs at the farm (I’m copying and pasting this.)
- The virus detected at the applicant’s farm (the genotype D1.3 virus) was a unique, previously undetected in Canada, genotype of HPAI H5N1 virus with enhanced pathogenicity. In experiments on mice, scientists at Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory have determined that it is among the most virulent viruses of its type tested at that laboratory.
- Analyses conducted by the CFIA’s National Centre for Foreign Animal Disease strongly support the inferred migration of genotype D1.3 viruses to the United States, which seeded significant outbreaks of HPAI in Ohio and Indiana, impacting millions of poultry and leading to the hospitalization of an Ohio poultry worker in February 2025 following infection with the genotype D1.3 virus.
- Ostriches can shed virus without showing clinical signs of infection.
- Avian influenza viruses can survive for months or even years in fresh water, wetlands, muddy ground and manure at low temperatures. There is a high likelihood that the entire area to which the appellant’s ostriches have access – approximately 20 acres of pasture, including muddy areas and manure piles, to which wild birds and animals enjoy unrestricted access – remains contaminated with active HPAI virus. Because the ostriches remain on the farm, it is expected that food and water are still easily available, encouraging continued contact of wild birds and animals with contaminated water, soil and other organic materials. This poses a high level of risk of transmission to wild birds and other animals.
- This risk of transmission has recently increased because the Fall migration of wild birds has begun, with many birds transiting over and through the appellant’s farm, potentially bringing with them different strains of HPAI virus and picking up any HPAI virus that remains on the infected premises. This produces an increased risk of new re-assortments of HPAI virus from and within these migratory wild birds as they are exposed to the HPAI virus likely present at the appellant’s farm. Historically, over the past two Fall/Winter periods, the poultry industry in British Columbia has been substantially affected by HPAI, with over 8 million domestic birds impacted.
- The appellants have not taken steps, despite being required to do so since January 2025, to prevent interactions between ostriches and wild birds, resulting in direct contact between wild birds and ostriches and indirect contact through manure contamination of feed tubs and the environment. During a CFIA inspection in late February, upon observing the presence of wild birds flying in and out of the ostrich pens, the appellant’s principals told inspectors that they believed their ostriches were able to build resiliency through contacts with wild birds.
- The CFIA is aware of numerous breaches of its quarantine measures by the appellant, including continued contact of wild animals and birds with the ostriches, failure to perform proper disinfection of equipment and vehicles and failure to report ostrich deaths.
- While testing of the ostriches could provide additional evidence of current risk, it could not address the unknown risks that the ostriches become reinfected nor the risks associated with the contaminated environment at the appellant’s farm. Protective immunity gained by ostriches following an infection of HPAI virus is temporary and may last between 2 to 6 months; birds may therefore be at risk of reinfection with the same strain of H5N1 circulating at the farm and shed the virus while appearing healthy.
- The fact that the appellants have allowed visitors supportive of the farm to camp on the property and allowed people close access to the infected herd raises additional concerns about the risk of transmission of the virus to people.
- Numerous threats against CFIA employees have been made on social media by members of the public who oppose the presence of CFIA oversight and the destruction of the ostriches, including from protesters currently residing on or adjacent to the premises.
I would note the Supreme Court of Canada appeal does not challenge any of the above.
The question before the Court is this: “Has the CFIA had reasonably exercised its authority in the circumstances of this case and that its Stamping Out policy on is lawful”.
The concern expressed by the CFIA, the Federal Court and the Federal Court if Appeal concerning the stay is this:
“[60] Indeed, I am of the view that granting a further stay, as requested by the appellant, would likely invite similar applications for stays from individuals or corporations whose poultry operations are subjected to a notice to dispose under the Act. As noted at paragraph 29 of the Judgment, this would have the practical effect of suspending the CFIA’s application of the HPAI 2022 ERP, including the Stamping-out policy, which this Court emphatically upheld as a reasonable exercise of the CFIA’s authority under the Act to protect the health of animals and humans and to preserve Canada’s ability to export its poultry products. Such an outcome could seriously threaten the CFIA’s ability to discharge its protective mandate under the Act.
[61] To assess the magnitude of the harm to the public interest posed by the granting of a further stay and the balance of convenience, I turn to the evidence adduced by the parties.
[62] I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that there is a high likelihood that the entire area to which the appellant’s ostriches have access is contaminated with active HPAI virus and that wild birds, which are prime natural reservoirs and vectors for the spread of HPAI, enjoy unrestricted access to the premises. Moreover, I am satisfied that the appellant’s principals have failed to prevent interactions between their ostriches and wild birds. I find that these conditions create a high level of risk of transmission of what scientists have determined is a very virulent virus with enhanced pathogenicity which, as shown by outbreaks of that virus in the United States, can inflict severe harm on poultry and infect and harm humans. I find that these conditions also produce an increased risk of new re-assortments of HPAI virus, some of which may be more adaptable to mammals, including humans.
[63] Moreover, I find that this high level of risk of transmission is increasing with the Fall migration of wild birds and that HPAI has historically substantially impacted the poultry industry in British Columbia in the Fall and Winter periods. Whether for 30 days pending filing of the appellant’s application for leave or for 3 to 6 months pending disposition of that application, the appellant is seeking to stay the application of the HPAI 2022 ERP during a period of time where an already high level of risk of transmission of HPAI is increasing.
[64] I am not satisfied that the appellant’s undertaking to “maintain all current biosecurity and quarantine measures without reductions or modifications” will “ensure that all regulatory objectives” of the CFIA are protected because, by failing to address the significant likelihood of HPAI contamination of the farm environment, unrestricted access to that environment by wild birds and the interaction between the ostriches and wild birds, it does not eliminate the high level of risk of transmission of HPAI and the risk of new virus re-assortments.
[65] I also find that the CFIA’s inability to eliminate the HPAI outbreak on the appellant’s farm, due to the stays granted over 8 months of litigation before the federal courts, has required the CFIA to maintain a control zone in British Columbia, significantly harming the poultry industry in that province by preventing the export of poultry produced in or transiting from British Columbia. I am satisfied that ordering the stay requested by the appellant would cause that industry further harm.
[66] I find that an additional stay of up to 6 months, as requested by the appellant, would jeopardize Canada’s access, for its poultry and poultry products, to the export markets of its most important trading partners, including the European Union and the United States. Under negotiated zoning arrangements with these countries, Canada can export poultry from outside HPAI control zones, but these arrangements are predicated on Canada’s application of the Stamping-out Policy in the control zones (Judgment at para. 95).
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 1,160
The only comment I would have is that the owners of the adjacent properties are going to be looking for compensation for loss of farming income. They could lose their farm status. Their land is likely also contaminated and I doubt it can be sufficiently remediated without extensive work.
When CFIA came on to the scene, they should have acted much more quickly and forced this to an early end. Now these people are all looking at a multi million dollar clean up, which they obviously can’t afford. So taxpayers will have to fund it.
And if the poultry industry takes a bigger hit because of these birds, the owners will be known for something much worse than losing their birds.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 41,543
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 4,084
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 7,156
- Points
- 1,360
The Supremes: no decision on whether to consider the case before around month's end.
www.thecanadianpressnews.ca
No decision on B.C. ostrich case until at least Oct. 30, as cull opponent is arrested
EDGEWOOD, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA - The Supreme Court of Canada likely won't decide until at least Oct. 30 whether to hear a last-ditch appeal against a planned cull of ostriches
Similar threads
