Position Statements

Decision-Making for Mass Depopulation of Domesticated Animals

March 1, 2022

The CVMA Position Statement Humane Mass Depopulation of Domesticated Animals (July 2021) is focused on the training of personnel, the emotional impact on participants, and the methods and procedures used in mass depopulation events. This document, Decision-Making for Mass Depopulation of Domesticated Animals is its companion document. The reader should review both documents for a complete understanding of CVMA’s position on the subject.

Background

1. A comprehensive and transparent decision-making process is essential to crisis management planning, including in emergency or non-emergency (planned) situations where mass depopulation of animals is considered (2). The CVMA strongly recommends that such a process be in place to assist authorities in determining the necessity for such action; to enable them to demonstrate that the benefits of doing so significantly outweigh the risks; and, where appropriate, to communicate the rationale for the final action plan to a public that has grown less tolerant of mass depopulation of domesticated animals (2)
2. In all crisis situations economic factors should be of minor consideration in deciding to undertake mass depopulation versus selecting alternative approaches. Animal welfare, including the prevention or alleviation of animal suffering should be given the highest priority. The CVMA strongly recommends that in all cases, veterinarians play a prominent role the design and application of the decision-making process. The process should support the assessment of alternatives to mass depopulation, and where feasible the implementation of such alternatives whenever their potential benefits outweigh their risks.
3. The CVMA strongly recommends that livestock producers, commodity groups and regulatory authorities mandated to make decisions on mass depopulation develop a decision-making process in advance of anticipated and potential crisis situations rather than waiting until such situations become acute. The process should be grounded by a framework that supports key ethical principles such as respect for humans, animals, and the environment; fairness; professionalism; minimizing harmful and maximizing desirable outcomes; responsible resource stewardship; inclusiveness; and weight of evidence, and where appropriate transparent and open communication with the public (2).
4. The decision-making process should allow for the development of a rationale grounded on a methodical assessment of the risks, benefits, and impacts of mass depopulation and of alternative strategies under an ethical framework that spans animal, human and environmental domains, as in the following example:
   • Animals
     Consider:
     • standards of care for species of concern.
     • quality of life issues versus risk of suffering for animals.
     • feasibility of following approved standard euthanasia protocols (3).
     • potential risk for disease transmission to nearby herds/flocks
     • veterinary involvement in the decision-making process
   • Humans
     Consider:
     • well-being of parties impacted by an emergency situation;
     • stakeholders’ views, including members of the veterinary team;
     • mental and physical wellness of response teams (4);
     • potential zoonotic disease risks;
     • potential public health and safety risks.
   • Environment
     Consider:
     • potential environmental hazards resulting from carcass disposal;
     • potential impacts on wildlife.
5. Examples of alternative strategies that could be explored by decision-makers with input from veterinarians under the above ethical framework could include:
   • Vaccination in the face of an outbreak of a highly contagious disease such as foot and mouth disease. Such approaches have been demonstrated to have the potential to dramatically reduce costs to producers, consumers, and governments when compared to mass depopulation of animals (5).
   • Treatment, in the case of some disease outbreaks.
   • Containment and allowing diseases to run their course, in the case of some disease outbreaks and.
   • Interrupting breeding programs to reduce the numbers of food animals entering the production cycle in the case of situations where slaughter capacity is impacted or other supply chain issues arise,
   • Interrupting the breeding programs of research animals where supply chain or other resource issues arise (6.7)
   • Redirecting animals to alternative markets in situations where it may not be possible to access existing markets.
   • Trap/Neuter and Release programs or adoption programs coupled with other strategies in the case of controlling feral cat populations. (8)
6. The rationale for the decision on the proposed response strategy should also address the feasibility of approaches considered in the assessment, including factors such as the availability of equipment, infrastructure, and trained personnel. The rationale should be accompanied by a communication strategy that focuses on the planned response strategy and targets all stakeholders, including the public (where appropriate) (2).
7. In all cases, the CVMA strongly recommends that feasible alternative strategies be employed unless an ethically sound, compelling, and transparent rationale for mass depopulation is developed and presented to stakeholders.

References

1. CVMA. Humane Mass Depopulation of Domesticated Animals (2021). Available from: https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/policy-and-outreach/position-statements/statements/humane-mass-depopulation-of-domesticated-animals/. Last accessed July 2021.
2. American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). AVMA Guidelines for the depopulation of animals: 2019 Edition. Available from: AVMAGuidelinesDepopulationofAnimals2019Edition.pdf (iastate.edu). Last accessed July 2021.
3. AVMA. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2020 edition. Available from: https://www.avma.org/resources-tools/avma-policies/avma-guidelines-euthanasia-animals.
4. Whiting TL, Marion CR. Perpetration-induced traumatic stress – A risk for veterinarians involved in destruction of healthy animals. Can Vet J. 2011;52(7): 794–796. Available from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3119248/. Last accessed July 2021.
5. Schroeder et al. Economic impact of alternative FMD emergency vaccination strategies in the midwestern United States. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 2015;4 (1): 47-76. Available from https://doi.org/10.1017/aae.2014.5.
6. CCAC resources on crisis management: https://ccac.ca/Documents/Assessment/Crisis- Management-Program.pdf
7. Canadian Council on Animal Care. Standards and Guidelines. Available from: https://www.ccac.ca/en/standards/guidelines/. Last accessed October 2nd, 2020).
8. CVMA Free-Roaming Owned, Abandoned, And Feral Cats – Position Statement https://www.canadianveterinarians.net/policy-and-outreach/position-statements/statements/free-roaming-owned-abandoned-and-feral-cats/.