Canadian federal officials said on Friday that they completed the killing of every ostrich held on a private farm in Edgewood, British Columbia, fulfilling a 10-month-old cull order issued during an avian influenza outbreak. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) said a professional marksman carried out the depopulation under veterinary supervision and described the operation as humane. The flock, which the CFIA estimated at 300 to 330 birds, was the subject of sustained legal resistance from the farm’s owners; the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear a final appeal, removing the last legal barrier. Family members and supporters on site reported emotional distress after shots were fired late Thursday afternoon, and no live birds were visible on the property on Friday.
Key Takeaways
- The CFIA says it has killed all ostriches at the Edgewood, B.C., farm, completing an order that has been in place for about 10 months.
- The agency estimated the flock at 300–330 birds and says the depopulation was done by a professional marksman under veterinary supervision.
- The Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the farm owners’ final appeal, clearing the way for action.
- Farm owners and supporters argued the animals showed no signs of illness and should be spared or tested; the CFIA maintained apparently healthy ostriches can still spread avian influenza.
- Owners are eligible for up to CA$3,000 (US$2,136) per bird in compensation, according to the CFIA.
- High-profile figures urged reconsideration and offered relocation: a letter from U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and an offer of refuge from Dr. Mehmet Oz were publicly noted.
Background
Avian influenza outbreaks have prompted governments worldwide to use depopulation as a disease-control tool when animal populations risk becoming reservoirs for viral spread. Canada’s federal authority to order culls rests on public- and animal-health statutes intended to prevent transmission between domestic animals, wildlife and humans. Ostriches, although not the most common avian species for outbreaks, can carry and transmit certain strains of avian influenza, and officials cited the risk of asymptomatic infection as a rationale for the order.
Since the CFIA first issued its directive roughly 10 months ago, the farm’s owners have pursued legal remedies, arguing the flock was healthy, potentially immune and valuable for research. Those arguments collided with federal policy priorities that prioritize rapid removal of suspected infected populations to limit opportunities for viral mutation and cross-species spillover, especially where birds could interact with wildlife. The dispute raised questions about testing protocols, compensation, and when authorities should weigh individual property rights against broader disease-control imperatives.
Main Event
The depopulation began in the early evening on Thursday, under low light conditions; the CFIA reported the operation started at about 6 p.m. and involved multiple shots fired in quick succession. Observers on site said a holding pen that had been packed with ostriches on Thursday was still and empty on Friday, with tarpaulins and black sheeting covering areas where the shootings occurred. The agency said the work was performed by a trained marksman and supervised by veterinarians to ensure the animals were killed humanely and efficiently.
Farm co-owner Karen Espersen’s family, represented publicly by spokeswoman Katie Pasitney, said they were devastated and that the household was struggling to cope. A local supporter, Janice Tyndall, 72, described listening to intermittent gunfire for hours before leaving the scene, saying she “couldn’t stomach it anymore.” The owners had repeatedly asked that birds be tested before any destruction; the CFIA maintained those tests would not eliminate the risk posed by asymptomatic carriers and that leaving the flock alive could raise the chance of viral mutation.
The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision not to hear the last appeal was the decisive legal development that allowed the CFIA to proceed. With that legal avenue closed, federal officials said they acted promptly to carry out the cull. The CFIA has said the farmers are eligible for compensation of up to CA$3,000 per bird; the agency provided that figure as part of its public communication around the action.
Analysis & Implications
Public-health authorities argue depopulation can be a necessary, if painful, measure to prevent a localized outbreak from becoming a wider problem. For zoonotic or highly mutable avian influenza strains, the presence of a large, dense flock presents both transmission opportunities and an environment where the virus could adapt. Officials cited the potential for wildlife contact as a particular concern in this rural interior region of British Columbia, where wild birds and other species could act as vectors.
Legally, the case illustrates tensions between property rights, animal-welfare concerns and state powers in emergency disease-control settings. The farm owners’ civil challenges forced multiple judicial reviews that delayed federal action for months, a delay that the CFIA and some epidemiologists argued raised public-health risks. The Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the final appeal effectively affirmed the lower courts’ rulings or at least left them intact, enabling enforcement of the original order.
Economically and scientifically, the loss is also tangible: a flock of 300–330 ostriches represented both a commercial asset and, according to the owners, a potential subject for research into immunity and disease resistance. Compensation up to CA$3,000 per bird provides a partial economic remedy, but it does not replace genetic, ecological or longitudinal research value, nor does it fully erase emotional and reputational harm to the farm family.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Reported Value |
|---|---|
| Estimated flock size | 300–330 ostriches |
| Compensation per bird | CA$3,000 (US$2,136) |
| Length of cull order | ~10 months |
| Operation start time | About 6 p.m. Thursday |
The table above summarizes the key numeric facts publicized by the CFIA and reported by witnesses. These figures contextualize both the scale of the depopulation and the compensation framework; the CA$3,000 ceiling per bird establishes an upper bound on federal financial exposure to the case, while the 10-month duration reflects the protracted legal process that preceded action.
Reactions & Quotes
Supporters and family members on site expressed grief and anger after the operation. The farm’s spokeswoman framed the family response in personal terms, saying they felt shattered by events they had been fighting in court for months.
“We are broken and can’t imagine the suffering last night. We can’t get out of bed.”
Katie Pasitney, farm spokeswoman (Facebook post)
At least one local supporter described the emotional toll of witnessing the operation unfold in the evening hours.
“I listened for a couple hours before I couldn’t stomach it anymore.”
Janice Tyndall, supporter, age 72
The CFIA defended its decision as a public-health necessity and emphasized the procedural and veterinary oversight of the depopulation.
“The depopulation was conducted by a professional marksman under veterinary supervision and in a humane manner,”
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (official statement)
Unconfirmed
- Whether comprehensive pre-cull testing of the entire flock would have detected infection in asymptomatic individuals is not publicly documented.
- Claims that the flock had established “herd immunity” and could be useful for research have not been corroborated by independent peer-reviewed testing available in the public record.
- Details about the exact viral strain(s) detected earlier on the property and their sequencing results have not been fully disclosed in public agency summaries cited by media.
Bottom Line
The CFIA’s completion of the ostrich depopulation at the Edgewood farm resolves a long-running enforcement and legal dispute but leaves contentious questions about process, testing and proportionality. Officials prioritized a precautionary public-health approach, citing the potential for asymptomatic carriage and the risk that a large domestic flock could enable dangerous viral mutation or transmission to wildlife. The owners and supporters framed the action as an avoidable loss, stressing the flock’s apparent health and research value.
Looking ahead, the case is likely to inform future disputes over disease-control measures, compensation sufficiency and transparency in testing and decision-making. Policymakers, courts and animal-health agencies may face renewed pressure to clarify the thresholds for testing versus culling, to improve communication about scientific evidence, and to ensure that compensation and research salvage options are considered where feasible.