MDARD said HPAI is a highly contagious virus that can spread in various ways between animals.

Credit: janaland – stock.adobe.com

Author: Mary Dupuis

Published: 12:39 PM EDT September 14, 2026

Updated: 12:39 PM EDT September 14, 2026

Animal owners should take these steps to prevent the spread of bird flu during wild bird migration this fall | wzzm13.com

MICHIGAN, USA — Officials are encouraging animal owners to stay vigilant and take preventive measures against avian influenza (HPAI) as wild birds begin their fall migration. 

The Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (MDARD) said that although HPAI hasn’t been detected in Michigan’s domestic animals since March 2026, it’s still important to take precautions. 

“Since the current outbreak of HPAI began in February 2022, wild birds have been prominent carriers of this virus, serving as the most common cause for the spread of this disease. As wild birds have started to migrate this year, the virus is already being detected in poultry in Idaho, Minnesota, and South Dakota,” said State Veterinarian Dr. Nora Wineland, DVM, MS, DACVPM. “HPAI still poses a threat to Michigan’s domestic animals, and taking measures to prevent animals from being exposed to wild birds and their germs is the best way to protect against this disease.”

MDARD said HPAI is a highly contagious virus that can spread in various ways between animals, including through wild birds, contact with infected animals, by equipment and on the clothes and shoes of caretakers. 

The disease is classified as being zoonotic, which means it can affect both animals and people. 

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the public health risk associated with the disease is low. 

However, people should continue to properly handle and cook all meat and eggs to the correct internal temperature and avoid consuming raw milk. 

Generally, MDARD said, every year cases are detected when the spring migration of wild birds starts, followed by a lull in the summer months, and then an increase when the fall migration begins. 

In 2025, there were 22 detections of HPAI in Michigan, including 10 detections in commercial poultry flocks and 12 detections in backyard flocks. Of those 22 cases, 13 of them were recorded in the fall. 

In 2026, the virus was found in two commercial flocks and one backyard flock in the spring. 

MDARD said that while it’s difficult to predict the impact of HPAI this fall, keeping wild birds away from domestic animals will help to reduce the risk of disease.

Owners can protect their domestic animals by:

• Preventing contact between domestic animals and wild birds.
• Limiting non-essential visitors to your farm.
• Washing your hands before and after caring for animals.
• Not sharing equipment or other supplies between farms.
• Cleaning and disinfecting clothing, footwear and equipment worn/used around sick animals.
  • Use an EPA-registered disinfectant effective against avian influenza.
• Keeping feed secure to ensure there is no contact between the feed/feed ingredients and wild birds or rodents.
• Allowing sufficient downtime between visits to poultry and dairy operations so the virus is not being carried between facilities.
• Contacting your veterinarian if there are ever any animal health-related concerns.

In Michigan, HPAI is reportable in all species of domestic animals. If the disease is suspected, contact MDARD at (800) 292-3939 during the day, or (517) 373-0440 after-hours.

If you notice what appears to be unusual or unexplained behaviors or deaths among wild birds or other wildlife, you should report it to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) through the Eyes in the Field app or by calling (517) 336-5030.Close Ad

September 14, 2026

Words matter, but this old debate might not be as important as it once was

By Beka Garris

Published Sep 13, 2026 2:44 PM EDT

Add Outdoor Life(opens in a new tab)More information

I never heard the term “harvest” used in reference to hunting until I was an adult. Growing up, the term we used for killing a deer was just that: “killing,” or maybe “shooting.” We kept our descriptions literal. 

The first time I heard someone say they had “harvested” a deer, my brain immediately conjured images of cutting corn, picking vine-ripened tomatoes, and snapping green beans while cicadas whirred overhead. I had grown up gardening, and the term “harvest” was something I always connected to vegetables and farming, not critters and hunting. Times have changed, however, and using the word “harvest” to describe the killing of game animals is now common. 

I can remember looking up the term “harvest” in the dictionary years ago. There was no reference to animals or hunting. But when you look up the term today, the definition includes: “catch or kill (animals) for human consumption or use.”

But is this a good thing? Is using “harvest” sanitizing hunting or being dishonest about it? On the flipside, is talking about  “shooting” and writing about “killing” turning non-hunters against hunting? Or, maybe there are good reasons to keep both terms in hunting’s lexicon. 

The Pros of “Harvest”

I travel the middle of the road when it comes to using the term “harvest.” I choose not to use it, though I understand why some people do. It doesn’t bother me to hear it in context with hunting. Some hunters tend to deem the term more appropriate than “kill” and I understand that, especially from a writer’s perspective. Writing the terms “kill” or “shoot” over and over in a story gets redundant. 

A quick sidenote: Outdoor Life uses both “kill” and “harvest” in its articles. It more often publishes “kill” when the story is focused on hunting tactics or how-to information. It often uses “harvest” in food-related stories, or when that term better fits the writer’s voice and perspective. Generally, OL avoids publishing the term “kill” in headlines or subtitles, where nonhunters are most likely to see (and misinterpret) the terminology. 

Out of curiosity, I turned to social media and found that most people (like myself) were rather unphased by this terminology. Most felt that it had little bearing on the impact of hunting itself. 

“We use harvest,” one hunting mom said. “I think both apply. The animal is killed, but then gathered and used entirely. We aren’t only killing.”

Other commenters said that using a more “politically correct term such as harvest” sheds a more positive light on hunting. 

Read Next: A First Deer Brings You Closer to the Wild

“As someone who used to be against hunting, when I started hunting and realized people also use the word harvest, I was absolutely relieved because it does feel like a PC term I can use around anyone,” one woman said. “I don’t feel like it sugar coats the act of killing, but rather it sounds more respectful to the animal.” 

It seems that many new and aspiring hunters tend to use the word “harvest” because it seems to better describe how they think about hunting.

“As someone who has never hunted, but is interested in doing so in the future, I don’t know if either term makes me more or less interested, though maybe ‘harvesting’ states more of the purpose—it’s about food and other human use versus merely trophy hunting. However, I do recognize the term ‘kill’ as a way to not … minimize the act. Maybe when I finally get around to hunting I’ll see what feels better coming out of my mouth.”

Many folks simply stated their preference for the straightforward approach: “I use the word ‘harvest’ because the ‘kill’ portion of the harvest is implied.”

The Pros of “Kill”

On the other side of the fence were hunters who felt strongly that the term “harvest” doesn’t properly describe what we actually do. They argue that we should use the terms “kill” or “shoot.”

“I believe we should speak politely but unapologetically when speaking the truth about hunting… We can agree to disagree [with nonhunters],” one hunter responded. “But I do not need to make words sound more gentle and friendly to try to sway them to my beliefs.”

Overall, the general consensus among this camp seemed to be that “harvest” was used as a way to sugar coat hunting, soften the reality of it, and avoid provoking anti-hunters. But do these people really care how we talk? I have been under attack by anti-hunters on several occasions, and it never seemed to matter how respectful I was about hunting or how I spoke of the game I shot. Their response was always the same knee-jerk reaction of anger and name calling. 

Read Next: Don’t Hunt or Kill Game If Your Heart Isn’t In It

“Honestly I don’t care what term anyone uses,” another hunter on social media stated.  “And, while I do go out of my way to always represent hunting and hunters in a positive light, I’m unsure if it matters to those who truly oppose hunting. I just don’t know if anything we do will be acceptable to [them] … But the reality is lions don’t harvest their food. We as predators are no different. We kill things and eat them. And the vast majority of those hunters I’ve met do so with incredible reverence. I choose to call it like I see it. [That means calling] it killing while letting my conduct do most of the talking.”

The Last Word on “Kill” vs. “Harvest”

After wading through dozens of comments that all reflected slightly different opinions, I came to a few different conclusions. 

First, there will be people who have a problem with hunting no matter how you word things. Most anti-hunters have already formed an opinion and won’t try to listen or understand the hunter’s perspective. There isn’t enough sugar coating in the world to make them come around, and the most we can do is to simply say our piece and step away. 

Second, speaking respectfully of the animals taken on a hunt is top priority. We can be respectful no matter which term is used. Still, using “harvest” may help bridge the barriers between hunters and non-hunters, as well as experienced hunters and new hunters. And if using the term “harvest” helps connect or inspire, then I’m good with it. 

Overall, the guidelines are simple: Strive to be respectful as hunters, no matter if we “kill” or “harvest.”

This column first appeared on outdoorlife.com on May 2, 2023.

Harvest or Kill? Which Term Hunters Should Use | Outdoor Life

For the opening of the 2026/27 season, France’s top hobby hunter stages defiance and pride in tradition. Behind it lies a worldview that declares killing for pleasure and nature its private property.

Editorial team Wild beim Wild — 14 September 2026

Willy Schraen and the opening: pride in killing

f FacebookX Twitter✉ Email💬 WhatsApp🔗Link

GGoogle Source

Save as a source! 🔥

Audio for this article

«The pleasure hunt»▶

0:00-0:00

All songs

For the opening of the French hobby hunting season 2026/27, Willy Schraen, president of the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs (FNC), addressed hobby hunters and French society in a video message on 13 September 2026.

His central appeal: “Be proud to be hobby hunters.” And with emphasis: “We will not be intimidated. We will give up neither our territories, nor our traditions, nor our rights.” It is the familiar battle cry of France’s top hobby hunter directed at all who question the killing of wild animals for leisure.

The vocabulary is no accident with Schraen. “We answer caricatures with facts, provocations with our cool composure, and attacks with our unity,” he called out to his followers. Pride, tradition, rights, calmness. It stages hobby hunting as an endangered cultural asset that must be defended against alleged attacks. Specifically, Schraen took aim at Green MP Sandrine Rousseau, who had called on people to head into the forests and fields for the opening. But if one takes stock of Schraen’s statements over the years, it becomes clear what this pride is actually built on: the normalisation of killing as pleasure, a claim of ownership over nature, and the devaluation of any ecological criticism. It is worth looking behind the slogans.

“I enjoy killing animals”

Unlike most officials who hide their actions behind terms such as “wildlife management”, “service to nature” or “conservation”, Schraen once spoke the core truth himself. In August 2020, upon the publication of his book “Un chasseur en campagne”, he answered on the channel CNews when asked whether pursuing and killing gave him pleasure: “The answer is yes. I enjoy killing animals as part of hunting.” Killing was “not violent at all”. One did not need to hunt to feed oneself, he admitted, but it was “a great pleasure”.

This candour is revealing. It names precisely the motive that has long been at the centre of the critical debate on hobby hunting: the pleasure of killing. Schraen himself supplies the refutation of his own justification. Anyone who admits that food is not the reason has already settled the nutrition question themselves. What remains is the pleasure of pursuit, the shot, and the death of a sentient being. We have examined this self-revelation in detail here: “I enjoy killing animals”: What hobby hunting conceals.

It is also telling how Schraen frames his message on safety. “Not shooting is also an act of hunting,” he cautioned at the opening. The sentence is meant to sound prudent, but it reveals the underlying attitude: the shot is the norm, restraint the laudable exception.

“Nature does not belong to everyone”

A striking claim of ownership is part of Willy Schraen’s self-image. When walkers said they felt unsafe encountering armed hobby hunters during the season, he coolly recommended they go for walks “at home” instead. His statement “Nature does not belong to everyone” earned him a wave of outrage, mockery from the animal welfare organisation PETA, and the label “Trump of the trigger” from the director of the French bird protection league.

Listen closely: according to this logic, it is not the people who want to move through the forest unarmed who have a right to nature, but those who come with a rifle. Anyone bothered by the sight of a hobby hunter should stay home. Walkers, families and cyclists appear as disruptive factors, while armed hobby hunters are meant to pursue their “passion” on the very same land. The public conflict is simply turned on its head: it is not the one who kills who must justify themselves, but the one who wants to move about freely and safely. Schraen repeated exactly this reversal at the 2026 opening, when he described not armed hunting but an MP’s call to protest as an “irresponsible call for confrontation”.

The enemy is called “ecology”

Schraen’s rhetoric thrives on an enemy image. For him, nature conservation becomes “écologie punitive”, punitive ecology. Anyone who calls for refuge areas for wild animals after extreme events is, in his view, pursuing “the ideology of eco-warriors who understand nothing about it”. Thus he dismissed as “ridiculous” the call to close fire-damaged areas to hobby hunting, even though Portugal has taken exactly this step and the data contradicts him. We have documented the case here: Forest fires and hobby hunting: what Portugal regulates and France does not.

At the 2026 opening, Schraen refined this strategy: “We counter ideology with science,” he proclaimed, calling on hobby hunters to document their kills in order to have “objective data” to use against political decisions. What sounds like objectivity is in fact a claim to authority: it is not independent research that should judge the state of wildlife populations, but the figures of those who themselves carry the rifle.

The same pattern appears with lead in hunting ammunition. When the EU postponed the ban by years, Schraen celebrated this as a victory of “rural realities” over an allegedly out-of-touch Commission. That an alliance of hobby hunting associations and the ammunition industry stood behind this dilution went unmentioned in his account. Yet lead is not a matter of taste, but a highly toxic heavy metal that harms birds of prey, scavengers and entire ecosystems. Read more here: Lead in hunting: how politics, lobbying and transitional periods keep a poison alive.

How much this defence of the toxic is part of the association’s self-presentation was also shown by Schraen in the dispute over glue traps: when France followed an EU directive and restricted this cruel bird-trapping method, he declared himself “completely opposed” and threatened lawsuits, in the name of people “with strong values, who take pleasure in catching a few birds”.

The wolf as enemy image

How far Schraen’s thinking extends is shown by his stance on the wolf. At the FNC congress in Deauville in March 2026, he sided with those who no longer wish to tolerate the predator. According to the hunting-friendly portal “Chasses Éternelles”, he took the argument to its extreme: in certain zones, the wolf was no longer compatible with the priority of pastoral farming, and there one must be able to eliminate the entire pack. As a model of efficiency, he cited, of all places, Switzerland.

Behind the animal, for Schraen, there is always a worldview: man as master, deciding which species may exist where. The wolf is merely the visible enemy image. The logic behind it affects all wild animals that stand in the way of hobby hunting’s grasp, from the fox to the crow to waterfowl.

A pride without foundation

The call for “cool composure” at the season opening is therefore more than a mere phrase. Cool composure is precisely the attitude needed to pursue and kill a living being without natural inhibition taking hold, and to then regard this as a source of pride. Empathy towards animals is not a sign of naivety but a moral capacity. Repeated habituation to violence can dull this empathy. Anyone who suppresses it in the name of tradition, ownership or “passion” makes killing socially acceptable, even though it is necessary neither for nutrition nor for a responsible experience of nature. We examine this psychological dimension of hobby hunting in greater depth in our dossier Psychology & hunting.

Schraen celebrates precisely this shift as a virtue. His «pride» is not pride in nature conservation or responsibility, but the pride of a lobby defending its social authority to define what is acceptable: the right to kill wild animals as a leisure activity, and to fend off criticism of this as an attack on tradition and rural identity. The most honest statement this man makes remains the one about the pleasure of killing. Everything else – tradition, territory, rights and supposed composure – is political stage-dressing.