Ostrich Cull in Canada Sparks Battle Over Rights

This article builds directly on the reporting and analysis shared publicly by Jane Scharf in her Facebook post. Scharf’s post raised critical questions about the deeper meaning of the ostrich farmers’ struggle, situating it not just as a matter of biosecurity but as a contest over rights, jurisdiction, and control.

The conflict between Universal Ostrich Farm in British Columbia and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has sparked debate far beyond agriculture. On the surface, it appears to be a simple dispute about whether a flock of ostriches should be destroyed after testing for avian influenza. The farmers argue their birds have natural immunity, that no deaths have occurred since January, and that relocation offers from the United States prove their research and commercial value. CFIA insists its stamping-out policy, a strategy of killing entire herds or flocks at the first sign of disease, requires eradication under the Health of Animals Act

At first glance, this looks like a tragedy confined to one farm. Yet upon deeper inspection, the battle suggests a much larger struggle: whether Canadian farmers and citizens still possess meaningful property rights or whether they merely manage assets at the state’s discretion. Legal observers caution that the ostrich farmers’ narrow administrative strategy, however heartfelt, may inadvertently leave CFIA’s broader powers intact rather than curbing them. Similar dynamics have been observed in past Canadian cases, where courts upheld narrow administrative points but left the broader authority of government agencies untouched. The risk is that dissent is contained in safe legal channels, generating sympathy but ultimately preserving the machinery of control.

👉 Subscribe to The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, along with our white paper, Last Asset Standing™ and early updates on our forthcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

The implications extend well beyond Canadian agriculture. For Americans, this case foreshadows how the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) could use its sweeping powers to reshape property rights under the guise of biosecurity. For Canada’s allies in the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia, the precedent may accelerate centralized control over food, animals, and land under frameworks such as the United Nations’ Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction, a 2015–2030 UN agreement guiding governments on how to use emergencies to justify expanded powers. The ostrich case is not merely a Canadian event but a warning signal to the Western world.

To understand the ostrich case, we must look back at how biosecurity powers expanded in Canada and its allies.

• In the 1990s, after outbreaks of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (mad cow disease), Canada amended the Health of Animals Act to expand CFIA’s ability to order mass culls without warrants or prolonged hearings. These measures were justified as necessary to preserve export markets.
• The United Kingdom took similar steps during the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and foot-and-mouth crises, where entire herds were destroyed, often without adequate compensation.
• The United States introduced stricter USDA “stamping-out” protocols during avian influenza outbreaks in the 2000s, creating a framework where suspicion alone could justify destruction.
• The European Union consolidated disease response into the 2016 Animal Health Law, giving supranational agencies authority to mandate herd eradication across borders.

This history shows a steady trajectory: biosecurity laws increasingly treat animals not as private property but as units in a global disease-control grid. The ostrich case is not a break from the past but an extension of this long arc toward centralized control.

The ostrich farmers consistently emphasized their devotion to the flock. They pointed out that no ostriches had died since January, that many had developed immunity, and that culling them would destroy valuable genetic diversity. Their public message resonated with compassion.

Yet in court, the legal strategy told another story. Instead of challenging CFIA’s sweeping seizure powers under the Health of Animals Act, the farm pursued a narrow administrative review. They argued that CFIA’s decision was unreasonable because it was made in only 41 minutes, and that ostriches are not the same as poultry.

The Federal Court and the Federal Court of Appeal rejected their arguments, affirming that CFIA acted within its legal powers. By avoiding rights-based claims, the farmers effectively conceded the broader framework of CFIA authority.

This disconnect grew sharper when the farmers criticized the reliability of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests publicly but chose not to present those critiques in court filings. The legal record remained narrow. Public statements questioned the reliability of PCR testing, though these arguments were not advanced in the court filings. In practice, optics prevailed over outcomes.

On September 24, 2025, the Supreme Court of Canada granted an interim stay of the cull. Headlines portrayed this as a victory. Yet in truth, it was procedural. The stay only paused CFIA’s order while the Court decides whether to hear the case. Custody of the birds remained with CFIA, which retained full authority on site.

The stay rested on technical grounds: that destruction would cause irreparable harm to genetic diversity and research potential, supported by an affidavit from a University of British Columbia scientist. While this delayed the cull, it reinforced the framing of ostriches as research assets rather than private property. No rights-based claims were presented.

The reality is stark: this case does not protect the rights of farmers. It risks solidifying CFIA’s control over them by confirming that even when challenged, the agency’s seizure powers remain intact.

The ostrich case follows a recognizable pattern:

1. Narrow the Remedy: The farmers argue ostriches are unique and should be treated differently. Even if successful, CFIA’s authority over other animals remains untouched.
2. Concede the Frame: By working entirely within the Health of Animals Act, the farmers implicitly accept CFIA’s sweeping authority.
3. Optics Over Outcomes: Public criticisms of PCR tests were never entered into the court record. Resistance becomes symbolic rather than structural.
4. Preserve the System: Even a temporary victory spares only one flock while leaving the machinery of control intact for every other farmer.

This pattern suggests that opposition, while genuine at the grassroots level, is structurally contained at the legal level. It generates sympathy but leaves the underlying system of power untouched.

The ostrich farmers estimate the flock’s value at more than eight million dollars, reflecting its rarity and genetic diversity. While the Health of Animals Act requires CFIA to provide compensation when animals are destroyed, payouts are capped at market value, which, for unique animals such as ostriches, is unlikely to cover actual losses. The destruction of such an asset would devastate the farm financially.

This risk extends far beyond one farm:

• Precedent of uncompensated loss: In Canada’s past avian influenza outbreaks, poultry farmers received market-value compensation, yet many reported losses far greater than the payouts. In the United States’ 2014–2015 bird flu crisis, capped payments left specialty breeders unable to recover. During the United Kingdom’s 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak, farmers were compensated, but the rural economy collapsed under the broader costs of lost markets and business interruption. These examples show that partial compensation often translates into financial ruin.
• Threat to other sectors: If CFIA can eradicate valuable animals under suspicion of disease with capped compensation, other livestock producers face the same risk. Cattle, swine, and poultry farmers could see herds destroyed with inadequate redress. Even companion animals have been culled in some countries during outbreaks, raising the possibility that pets could one day fall under similar policies.
• Impact on farm viability: Canadian farmers already operate on thin margins. A policy of eradication combined with capped compensation could drive many out of business. For unique operations like Universal Ostrich Farm, recovery would be impossible.
• Investor confidence: Family farms and institutional investors may view Canadian agriculture as high risk if herds and flocks can be destroyed unilaterally, with payouts failing to cover real value. Capital could shift toward jurisdictions that provide stronger property protections, eroding Canada’s agricultural competitiveness.

The economic impact ripples outward. Farm closures weaken rural communities, food sovereignty, and supply chains. Uncompensated or under-compensated eradication undermines investor confidence and threatens the very foundation of Canadian agriculture. Rather than protecting farmers’ rights, the ostrich case risks solidifying CFIA’s control over agricultural assets, creating a precedent that normalizes state seizure with limited restitution.

Public sentiment has been strongly sympathetic to the farmers. Many Canadians see them as fighting against bureaucratic overreach. Yet mainstream media coverage has been limited and often frames the story narrowly as a biosecurity issue.

Reuters reported the Supreme Court stay but emphasized the procedural nature rather than the property-rights implications. Canadian outlets have focused on CFIA’s mandate, portraying eradication as standard policy. In contrast, independent voices like Jane Scharf have highlighted the deeper issue: whether citizens have meaningful property rights at all.

This split in coverage reflects a broader challenge. The media often amplifies technical narratives while sidelining rights-based critiques. The result is public confusion and limited pressure for structural reform.

The ostrich case is not only about livestock. It illustrates how governments justify seizing or freezing assets in the name of the public good.

Canada has already demonstrated this logic in the financial sphere. In 2022, during the trucker convoy protests, the federal government froze bank accounts of individuals associated with the demonstrations under the Emergencies Act. This unprecedented step was justified as necessary for public safety and economic stability. Accounts were frozen without court orders, showing how quickly property rights can yield to state emergency powers.

Other Western nations have adopted similar measures:

• In Australia, the MyGov system links health, tax, and welfare accounts. During the pandemic, access to payments and services could be suspended for non-compliance with mandates, a form of conditional access to assets.
• In the European Union, the debate around the proposed digital euro has centered on programmability. Policymakers have acknowledged that a central bank digital currency could, in theory, limit how money is spent or impose expiry dates. Critics argue this transforms currency from a neutral store of value into a tool of behavioral control.
• In the United States, Patriot Act powers allow authorities to seize or freeze bank accounts suspected of funding terrorism. Over time, this scope has expanded into broader financial monitoring and enforcement, making suspicion alone enough to justify seizure.

The parallel is clear. The pattern suggests that if accounts can be frozen for political reasons and flocks can be destroyed for biosecurity reasons, then the security of other asset classes cannot be taken for granted. Land, savings, pensions, and livestock can all be revalued, frozen, or eliminated under emergency frameworks. International precedents reinforce this warning: in Cyprus in 2013, depositors saw bank accounts raided in a state-mandated bail-in when depositors’ savings were forcibly used to recapitalize failing banks; in India in 2016, the government invalidated large denominations of currency overnight, instantly erasing private savings. These cases show how quickly ‘emergencies’ can justify sweeping financial interventions such as capital controls, government-imposed limits on moving money across borders or even withdrawing it from banks, that strip individuals of control over their assets. The ostrich case is not an isolated agricultural dispute but part of a larger pattern of asset control in the Western world.

Not all challenges to state overreach fail. Historical examples show that rights-based strategies can succeed.

• In the United States, farmers have successfully sued the USDA when compensation for destroyed animals was inadequate, forcing the government to recognize property rights in livestock.
• In Canada, courts have occasionally struck down overbroad regulatory powers when they conflicted with the Charter or the Canadian Bill of Rights, although these cases are rare.
• Internationally, courts in Europe have ruled in favor of property holders when disease-control measures were applied arbitrarily or without due process.

These cases demonstrate that resistance framed around rights and due process can work. But it requires courage, resources, and persistence to pursue.

The global One Health approach a framework linking human, animal, and environmental health into one system of control, endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), integrates human, animal, and environmental health into a centralized system.

This vision treats animals not primarily as property but as components of global biosecurity. By making genetic research central to their argument, the ostrich farmers reinforced this paradigm rather than challenging it.

WHO One Health guidance repeatedly identifies eradication and control of animals as core prevention tools. Analysts argue this places private livestock within the sphere of global governance.

Reuters confirmed that Dr. Mehmet Oz personally offered to house the ostriches for study. While framed as an act of rescue, this solution would have transferred the flock into another form of institutional oversight.

Some critics see Dr. Oz as a symbolic figure who often appeared to challenge medical orthodoxy while ultimately working within the system. Applied here, offers of scientific sanctuary may appear to resist CFIA but in reality keep the flock under institutional control, leaving the broader issue of property rights unresolved.

The claim that Universal Ostrich Farm lies on unceded territory land never formally surrendered or sold through treaty introduces another layer of complexity.

• Haida Gwaii Case (British Columbia, 2025): In the landmark Haida Gwaii case, the Council of the Haida Nation secured recognition of Aboriginal title a form of Indigenous land ownership recognized by Canadian courts as an inherent right that predates Crown sovereignty over nearly all terrestrial lands of the Haida Gwaii archipelago, located off the north coast of British Columbia. This ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2025 extended title not only over forests and uplands but also into intertidal zones and some submerged areas of the Pacific coastline. Although the decision stated that existing private property rights would technically remain in place, critics argue that the legal supremacy of Aboriginal title could, in practice, override fee simple ownership the standard type of private property ownership in Canada, though still ultimately subject to Crown authority in future disputes. This ruling has reshaped the legal landscape of property rights across the islands, raising questions for residents, businesses, and government authorities about the limits of private ownership within territories under Aboriginal title.
• Richmond Case (Fraser River Delta, 2025): In Richmond, located within the Lower Mainland of British Columbia along the Fraser River delta, the Cowichan Tribes supported by allied Coast Salish First Nations achieved recognition of Aboriginal title over Tl’uqtinus and surrounding submerged lands. The court determined that historical Crown land grants had unjustifiably infringed upon Aboriginal title, thereby affirming the superior standing of Indigenous land rights in this coastal and riverine region. While the ruling left the status of fee simple lands in limbo, the court made clear that Aboriginal title takes precedence. This has profound implications for municipal planning, property values, and development rights in one of Canada’s most densely populated and economically significant regions.

Both cases demonstrate how courts are increasingly aligning their reasoning with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which Canada endorsed federally in 2021. Article 26 of UNDRIP declares that Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources they traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used. Article 32 affirms their right to determine how those lands are developed, with states obligated to obtain ‘free, prior, and informed consent’ (a requirement that governments must secure Indigenous peoples’ agreement before authorizing projects).

British Columbia went further by embedding these obligations into provincial law through the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA) in 2019. DRIPA requires that provincial laws be brought into alignment with UNDRIP, and courts have already begun applying that principle. The Richmond case shows how Aboriginal title can displace long-standing assumptions about private land grants.

Applied to the ostrich case, this raises the possibility that CFIA’s authority may overlap or even conflict with Indigenous jurisdiction in the future. Courts have not yet ruled directly on such a clash, but the precedent from recent Aboriginal title cases suggests the potential for future conflict. Farmers may find themselves caught in a complex legal environment where federal biosecurity powers intersect with provincial enforcement of UNDRIP and Indigenous title claims. Rather than providing clarity, these overlapping frameworks could create uncertainty for all parties, including farmers, Indigenous communities, and regulators alike. The outcome is a patchwork of authority that leaves property rights unsettled and difficult to defend.

The ostrich case illustrates the dangers of narrow strategies. To protect property rights more broadly, farmers and citizens must pursue structural solutions:

1. Legal Reform: Challenge provisions of the Health of Animals Act that allow warrantless seizure. Rights-based litigation should focus on property and due process.
2. Economic Independence: Build parallel structures of ownership, including private markets for livestock, food, and land.
3. Public Awareness: Demand accurate media coverage that goes beyond biosecurity narratives to address property rights.
4. Financial Preparedness: Structure wealth in secure forms, including physical assets, to reduce exposure to sudden state seizures.
5. Coalitions: Farmers, investors, and citizens must form alliances to resist creeping centralization.

Without these steps, cases like Universal Ostrich Farm will serve only to strengthen CFIA’s control and set precedents that strip rights from all Canadian farmers.

The ostrich flock is not only about agriculture. It is a proxy for the security of all assets. If CFIA can destroy property worth millions without compensation, the precedent extends to financial accounts, real estate, and retirement portfolios.

This is why structuring wealth securely has become essential. Registered accounts, digital assets, and even farmland can be revalued, frozen, or seized. Protecting wealth now requires proactive strategies that prioritize secure, tangible assets.

The ostrich case illustrates that property rights, whether in animals, land, or money, are increasingly contingent on government discretion. For those concerned about protecting wealth, the lesson is clear: it is no longer enough to rely on registered accounts or digital assets that can be revalued or frozen. Strategies that emphasize secure, tangible assets are now essential. This is why our firm prioritizes helping clients structure their wealth by Owning Assets in Order of Asset Security. For readers who want to go deeper, we offer resources such as the Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and our international bestseller It Starts With Gold™, which outline practical steps to prepare.

👉Book your complimentary review to learn how to structure your wealth in order of Asset Security.

👉 Sign up today for The Merrick Spitters Reset Report™ and receive a digital copy of our international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, our White Paper, Last Asset Standing™, and early updates on our upcoming book, Killing Crypto™.

Stay informed. Stay prepared. Take action while you still have the freedom to choose.

The insights you will receive connect directly to the urgent themes expanded in the number one international bestseller, It Starts With Gold™, co-authored by Peter J. Merrick, TEP® and Adrian C. Spitters, CFP®. In the book, we reveal how governments and institutions quietly position themselves to control both assets and rights. Visit www.ItStartsWithGold.com.

Prefer a hard copy of It Starts With Gold™? You can order one from Amazon now.

This analysis began with the insights shared by Jane Scharf in her Facebook post. Her framing of the ostrich farm conflict as a question of rights, jurisdiction, and control has opened the door to a much larger debate.

What happens in British Columbia could shape how governments across North America, the United Kingdom, the European Union, and Australia redefine property rights under the banners of biosecurity and reconciliation. Critics warn that this case does not secure the rights of farmers. Instead, it risks cementing CFIA’s authority and legitimizing overlapping jurisdictional claims.

The choice is now clear. Farmers and citizens can either accept a system where property exists at the state’s discretion or fight for structural reforms that protect ownership and liberty.

1. Reuters: Canada pauses cull of ostrich flock that had cases of avian flu (interim stay by Canada Supreme Court)
2. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): Health of Animals Act
3. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): Animal health compensation: What to expect when an animal is ordered destroyed
4. Government of Canada / CFIA: Notice to Industry: Amendment to the Compensation for Destroyed Animals and Things Regulations (June 18, 2025)
5. Canada Gazette: Regulations Amending the Compensation for Destroyed Animals and Things Regulations (SOR/2025-136)
6. Government of Canada / CFIA: Supporting Canada’s cattle industry by increasing maximum compensation amounts
7. Farms.com / Ag Industry News: New CFIA cattle payout rules amounts announced 
8. Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA): Notice to Industry: Amendments to the Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations. December 4, 2024
9. Inspection Canada / CFIA: Notice of previous CDATR amendments (Dec 4, 2024)
10. Canada Gazette: Regulations Amending the Compensation for Destroyed Animals Regulations (SOR/2024-224). December 4, 2024
11. First Peoples Law: Reconciling Aboriginal and Fee Simple Title: Cowichan Tribes v. Canada. August 2025
12. JFK Law: In Landmark Cowichan Tribes Decision, BC Supreme Court Addresses Coexistence of Aboriginal Title and Private Property. August 2025
13. Cassels: A Great Unknown: Government of British Columbia Creates Considerable Uncertainty with Recognition of Aboriginal Title to Private Land. July 2025
14. The Hub: New BC Supreme Court ruling: Haida Nation’s land claim threatens property owners. September 11, 2025
15. Mandell Pinder LLP: The Haida Title Lands Agreement
16. Government of British Columbia: Haida Aboriginal Title Lands Agreement
17. Supreme Court of Canada: Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), 2004 SCC 73
18. United Nations: United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP)
19. Legislation, Government of British Columbia: Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act (DRIPA), SBC 2019, c. 44
20. Yellowhead Institute: Recognition and Erasure of Indigenous Oceanic Rights and Title. September 2025
21. Cassels: Haida Gwaii Aboriginal title recognition
22. World Health Organization (WHO): One Health
23. World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH): One Health Approach
24. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO): One Health Priority Programme
25. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): One Health and the Environment
26. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR): Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030
27. UK Government: 2001 Foot and Mouth Disease: Lessons Learned Inquiry Report
28. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA): 2014–2015 Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza Outbreak: Final Report
29. Jane Scharf: Public Facebook Post on the Universal Ostrich Farm Case. September 2025