Want to discuss? Please read our comment policy first.

Six hundred and thirty thousand chickens, 12 thousand pigs, four hundred and fifty cows. This is the number of animals that have died in floods on farms in British Columbia in the past three weeks. Another 650,000 people were killed in the "Hot Dome" earlier this year.

In the two climate change disasters, 1.3 million farm animals died.

And this number is only part of the story. As farmers return to their barns and reconstruction of the entire Fraser Valley is underway, more animals may still need to be euthanized.

This terrifying scenario raises a critical and disturbing question: In an era of almost constant climate change disasters—interrupted by periods of extreme heat, wildfires, and cold—should rebuild in known floodplains? Property destroyed by the flood?

"Some areas may not have enough funds to properly protect," said Rob De Pruis, director of consumer and industry relations at the Insurance Agency of Canada.

"It doesn't make any sense to build on these existing floodplains. Because you may not be flooded today or tomorrow, but these areas are quite likely to be flooded."

Insurance companies and animal welfare advocates are urging politicians to consider whether it is a good idea to rebuild farms in areas that may fall underwater again next year, the year after, or the year after.

They also hope that farmers and politicians at all levels of government will ask themselves whether the Sumas grassland—the lake bed turned into the agricultural heartland of the province with the worst flooding—is still a safe place to live.

"Imagine if the only thing missing from the floods in the Fraser Valley were dozens of oat fields," said Camille Labchuk, an attorney and executive director of Animal Justice.

"This is definitely better than losing hundreds of thousands of animals."

Read more: Liquid fertilizer from floods in British Columbia may have contaminated some wells in the Lower Mainland

At the same time, farmers said that they are the last people who want to see farm animals injured or killed. It erodes their profits, and they have to deal with the emotional loss of cleaning up the dead body.

But since July, there have been three large-scale natural disasters related to climate change in BC: a hot dome with temperatures soaring to 49.6 degrees Celsius, wildfires, and recent floods. None of these disasters caused major changes in the animal welfare law.

Although the province has regulations on best practices for farm animal safety, such as regulations on how much space should be given to cows and what materials the barn floor can be made of, these guidelines are set by farmers or various agencies themselves. Industry groups representing farmers.

Advocates such as Labchuk say that this situation must be changed and the government must enact stricter animal welfare laws. They also stated that politicians need to resolve the link between agriculture and climate change before providing more aid funds to farmers.

“Not only are animals in danger, but farmed animals also contribute to the climate crisis and the increase in greenhouse gases, making these weather events more extreme,” Labchuk said.

On November 15, when the Nuuksack River burst its banks, Lisa McCrea was caring for a herd of cows in a veterinary clinic in Sumas Prairie.

The barn she was in was full of water, and the speed was so fast that there was no time to escape. She said that it took less than an hour for the cold water to go from ankle depth to waist height.

McCree said that a few hours later, someone came to rescue her in a kayak. But the animals had to stay.

"It's so surreal," she said. "It is very difficult to know that you have to keep the cows. I don't know what we will see the next day, and whether they are still alive."

This was not the first time McCree had to escape the rising waters. She grew up in New Brunswick, and her family was forced to leave home due to flooding.

This is not the first time the Sumas grassland has entered the water. In the past few decades, there have been dozens of floods, including the 1990 flood and the 1948 mega flood.

That's because the Sumas grassland was once a lake.

The so-called "grassland" was created in 1924, when engineers used a complex network of dams, pumps, and canals to drain Lake Sumas. Since then, farmers have been able to grow crops and raise animals on the lake bed.

But this fragile system requires constant maintenance. The effects of climate change make this arduous task even more difficult.

"There is a fallacy, a logical error, and almost every news report touts this," said Chad Reimer, a British Columbia historian who studies and writes about the area. "In other words, the middle of the Fraser Valley is a fertile farmland."

Read more: The Sumas Aboriginal Chief Reflects on the "Disaster" of B.C.'s Past Lake Flooding

Remer said that farmers initially wanted to grow wheat in the area, but soon discovered that the soil here is more suitable for growing crops such as grass, corn and berries. Due to its proximity to pastures, the livestock industry in the Fraser Valley has developed rapidly.

But Reimer said the historical basis for raising livestock in the valley no longer makes sense. Today, many farmed animals, such as cows and chickens, spend almost their entire lives indoors and eat food grown elsewhere.

He also said that compared with previous years, the reason the flood damage was so severe was that politicians allowed farms to proliferate in an area full of known flood risks and with little control.

"The water wants to overflow," Reimer said. "It fell from the mountain, and under the influence of gravity, it hit what used to be a lake bed and a floodplain. It wants to flood, and it will find a way out."

Protecting farm animals from harm in British Columbia mainly depends on farmers and industry groups.

The National Farm Animal Care Committee (NFACC) has developed operating practices for each type of farm. These codes were developed with the opinions of farmers, meat processors, consumer and retail groups, and animal welfare organizations such as the Humane Society of Canada.

These specifications include recommendations and requirements for animal reproduction, health and safety, as well as measures that must be taken in the event of a power outage.

Livestock farmers must comply with these codes in order to obtain a license in BC, and various industry groups and associations (including provincial dairy and poultry marketing committees) monitor compliance.

But the law itself does not provide details about what measures farmers must take to protect animals in an emergency.

The current dairy regulations do not include any urgent care requirements. Farmers are encouraged to develop evacuation plans, including methods for transporting and raising animals during disasters, but these regulations are only recommendations.

Poultry regulations covering chickens, laying hens and turkeys stipulate that farmers must develop emergency plans, backup power sources and alarms to signal when critical machinery fails, but the regulations do not mention the evacuation of birds during floods or fires .

The pig code contains fewer details.

"Generally speaking, there is not much protection for animals," said Vicki Facteau, head of the Canadian Farm Animals Alliance.

Facteau believes that the government is unwilling to make farmers bear the extra cost, even if it means that farm animals are less protected.

She also stated that NFACC regulations and provincial legislation are insufficient to prevent injuries, whether in daily operations or in emergency situations.

Read more: Thousands of pigs, cows, chickens and possibly bees died in the Fraser Valley

But not everyone agrees with this view.

Ray Nickel, a chicken farmer and spokesperson for the BC Poultry Association, said that there is a lot of regulation and supervision in the breeding industry.

He also said that it is in the best interest of every farmer to take care of animals, keep them healthy and save them from disasters.

"We do have a very strong emergency response team in British Columbia," Nickel said. "This has been established since we were tortured by the catastrophic avian flu in 2004."

Nickel said that in the past ten years, farmers have also responded to the new reality of climate change, especially extreme heat.

He said that if farmers did not upgrade the cooling system after experiencing similar heat waves in the past, the losses during the heat dome would be more serious.

Speaking of flooding, Nickel said that most farms have mitigation plans in place, which include plans to move animals to higher altitudes, as well as backup generators in case of power outages.

But he said it is impossible to plan for every possible situation, especially large-scale infrastructure failures like those seen in the recent floods.

"Most producers will experience rain events, but you can't plan that the dike will inevitably break," Nickel said. "If you do, you may have to do it in the future, then there must still be a warning system."

Officials from the Canadian Ministry of Environment and Climate Change said that the early warning system for the "atmospheric river" that has hit British Columbia in the past three weeks may take several years.

At the same time, farmers and animal welfare advocates still need to prepare for the next disaster that may happen at any time.

Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice, said the farm should be smaller.

On average, a chicken farm in BC has about 50,000 birds. The pig farm has approximately 5,000 live pigs. A dairy farm can have hundreds of cows.

"It is unrealistic to evacuate tens of thousands of chickens from flooded barns," Labchuk said. "The size of the farm should be limited to the number of animals that can be evacuated, and emergency rescue plans should become legal requirements."

Labchuk also stated that there are problems with how to incorporate the NFACC code into the law.

Farmers in BC do not have such legal requirements. These codes are cited in provincial regulations, but compliance with them is not legally mandatory.

The province’s Ministry of Agriculture stated on its website that when reasonable and generally accepted agricultural practices are “misunderstood or questioned”, it will incorporate these regulations into the law to “protect farmers and ranchers” from allegations of misconduct. This might include branding cattle, which can cause "severe pain" to the animal, keeping the laying hens in small cages, or preventing the animals from outdoor sports.

British Columbia’s “Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act” also stipulates that farmers “must not be convicted” if their actions are carried out “in accordance with the prescribed care standards” for the type of agriculture they are engaged in.

This means that farmers whose cattle, pigs, or chickens died of drowning or hypothermia in the recent floods may never face charges—even if their emergency plans are inadequate or non-existent. If their animals die from high temperatures, farmers may also avoid being convicted - even if they don't have the latest cooling system.

Lana Popham, the Minister of Agriculture of British Columbia, declined multiple requests for interviews.

"There are no legal requirements for evacuation plans for farm animals," said Melissa Speirs, BC SPCA's Farm Animal Welfare Manager.

Speirs said the challenge of evacuating farm animals during the disaster is huge. This includes finding trucks suitable for transporting live animals, providing large amounts of food and water, and responding to the immediate risks of the disaster itself.

In the case of floods or wildfires, the risks to human life also need to be considered. Sometimes disasters come quickly, such as the wildfires in Lytton, British Columbia, or mudslides caused by recent floods. In these situations, human well-being must be the top priority.

But this does not mean that farmers should not be prepared, Spears said, nor does it mean that the government should take a back seat in prevention.

"All our farmers said that the codes are very important and they are following them," she said. "We are just seeking additional guarantees."

Not everyone who cares for animals agrees with this view.

Veterinarian McCrea from Sumas Prairie said she believes that the best supervision of farm animals comes from the industry itself.

Whether it is led by farmers or veterinarians, she said that the expertise and knowledge needed to care for farm animals can only be obtained through experience.

McRae said this became apparent the morning after the first flood, when she and her colleagues returned to the barn and twisted the cows to a safe place.

"We did not suffer any losses," she said. "We are working together, just trying to keep up and keep everyone up to date...and try to take more proactive methods to help the animals tide over the difficulties."