They Shoot Ostriches, Don't They?
November 2025
The culling of hundreds of ostriches in Canada, nearly eleven months after they were confirmed positive for a highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAIv) in December 2024, raises substantive professional and ethical concerns. When dealing with HPAI viruses, rapid and decisive action is justified at the onset of an outbreak. These viruses can spread efficiently and cause severe, often fatal disease within days. Yet the scientific rationale that underpins such emergency measures weakens considerably as time passes without clinical activity. This temporal gap is therefore central to understanding why the late destruction of the flock demands scrutiny.
HPAI viruses exhibit an acute infection profile. Birds that survive the initial phase typically cease viral shedding within a short period, and extended silent transmission months after detection is biologically improbable. In the Canadian case, no reports indicated ongoing clinical signs, renewed mortality, or further spread during the intervening months. Under these conditions, the professional expectation is to conduct repeated risk assessments, reassess viral activity with current diagnostics, and refine control measures accordingly. The absence of such updated evidence calls into question the foundations of the culling decision and suggests reliance on an outdated diagnostic event rather than on real-time epidemiological evaluation.
This situation underscores a broader ethical dilemma. Culling is an extreme intervention, intended to prevent imminent and demonstrable risk. Veterinarians hold dual responsibilities: safeguarding public and animal health while ensuring that harm to animals is justified strictly by evidence. Eliminating a flock of clinically healthy animals, long after the presumed infectious window has closed, raises the concern that regulatory processes were followed mechanically, without the scientific flexibility essential in modern disease management. Ethical veterinary practice requires that destructive actions be grounded in contemporary data, proportional risk, and transparent justification, not in inertia or procedural momentum.
From an epidemiological standpoint, the notion that a HPAIv remained a genuine threat nearly a year after detection is difficult to reconcile with established virology. The Canadian incident illustrates the need for dynamic disease-control policy. Protocols must incorporate mechanisms for reassessment over time, especially for HPAI outbreaks, so that actions remain aligned with scientific reality. Failure to do so not only compromise animal welfare but also risks undermining public confidence in veterinary authorities, particularly when decisions appear disproportionate to the current risk.
Nati Elkin
