Friday April 17, 2026, at the Ferme du Soulé in Baulou (Ariège), an automatic vaccination operation against lumpy skin disease (LCD) was carried out against explicit consent from breeder Christelle Record. What was supposed to be a routine health measure turned into a surreal scene: two veterinarians from a zoo, dart guns in hand, using anesthesia equipment for wildlife, while sub-prefect Sophie Pauzat, who had promised two months earlier that “ the State will support farmers », supervised the intervention. A contradiction which deeply questions on the reality of the support promised to the rural world.
Context: a health obligation that turns into a standoff
DNC, a viral disease of cattle also called “ lumpy skin disease ”, has reappeared in Europe in recent years. In France, a compulsory vaccination campaign was launched by prefectural decree of April 10, 2026 in several departments, including Ariège. Christelle Record, independent breeder, refused vaccinationarguing for its global health project which allows natural immunity to its livestock, and a disproportionate risk compared to benefits. She tried to evacuate some of her animals, and saw around a hundred supporters arrive blocking access to the farm to deal with an unreasonable and disproportionate deployment of law enforcement – more than a hundred for 30 cattle.
On April 16, 2026, the Toulouse administrative court rejected his request for suspension of the order in summary proceedings. The next day at six o’clock in the morning, gendarmes, sub-prefect and requisitioned veterinarians invaded the place. Some animals scattered in the meadows were arrowed from a distance. By the “ violence of the situation “, both human and animal abuse that she considers contrary to her global health project, Christelle Record announced, shocked, that she intended to end her activity as a breeder, not without first documenting her global health project in order to benefit young breeders.
Veterinarians: from the zoo to the forced syringe
The two requisitioned practitioners who carried out the vaccination are Sylvie Clavel et Lucie Mouveauxveterinarians at the African Safari Zoo in Plaisance-du-Touch (Haute-Garonne). None are specialists in conventional cattle herds.
Lucie Mouveaux, a recent graduate, published a photo of herself with a dog in a meadow on Instagram on April 14, 2023, commenting: “ It’s okay, I know how to manage a herd of cows “. Internet users had fun: “ That’s a big syringe for a little chihuahua » or « They’re not cows… they’re a dog and 2 that doesn’t make a herd ».
Even more disturbing: the briefcase brought on site. Open to the photos, it reveals detailed protocols for anesthetizing wild animals (waterbuck, wildebeest, oryx, zebras, giraffes, etc.) with products like Zoletil (tiletamine + zolazepam), la medetomidinethe butorphanol or the ketamineas well as their antidotes. No sign mentions the DNC vaccine or bovine protocol. This is a classic kit of chemical capture for wildlife. The veterinarians prepared the darts without gloves – a legal but symbolically striking gesture for a forced injection.
Questioned by Me Diane Protat on site, they responded laconically: “ Don’t worry, it’ll be fine “. And did not answer further questions, an attitude veering towards self-importance or arrogance. Unless it is the awareness of having to act on requisition despite common sense and their duties as veterinarians
Sub-prefect Sophie Pauzat: from speech of support to constraint action
Appointed in February 2026, Sophie Pauzat declared in La Dépêche du Midi: “ The State will support farmers “. She presented herself as an interlocutor attentive to the difficulties of the rural world in Couserans.
On April 17, however, she was on the ground to supervise an operation carried out against the will of a farmer. Despite the declarations of Christelle Record (“ You will not touch my cattle! “) and citizen mobilization, the sub-prefect validated the secure intervention by the gendarmes. For many observers, this presence illustrates a double talk : words of proximity when everything is going well, and administrative constraint as soon as the public interest (here health) takes precedence.
Sardinia’s inconsistency: a justification that raises questions
During the summary liberty hearing on April 16 at the Toulouse administrative court, the sub-prefect reportedly mentioned the resurgence of the DNC in Sardinia to underline the urgency, affirming that cases came from unvaccinated animals.
However, on the same day, the Italian Ministry of Health published an official press release : the first outbreak confirmed on April 14 in Muravera (province of Cagliari) concerned calves of approximately four months born to mothers vaccinated against LSD. Serological tests are underway on vaccinated adults. A second suspected case is being examined in Villa Putzu. The text is clear and public.
This discrepancy between the statement of the State representative and the official Italian press release raises questions. When a public authority invokes a fact to justify a restrictive measureis it not his duty to provide factual proof? Omission of the vaccination origin of the animals concerned reinforces the feeling of incomplete justificationeven oriented.
The court’s decision: a shadow over judicial independence
The order of summary judge Philippe Grimaud (n° 2603232) of April 16, 2026 rejects Christelle Record’s requests. This magistrate is a former student of the ENA from the Senghor class of 2002-2004 – the same as that of Emmanuel Macron. Observers present at the hearing, who took verbatim the exchanges, the magistrate’s questions and the parties’ responses, believe that the text corresponds neither to the tone nor to the atmosphere of the hearing.
More serious: the decision contains in the file properties the mention of a foreign person to the administrative court. The name on the file corresponds to that of a lawyer specializing in administrative law registered with the Toulouse bar. For these direct witnesses, the judgment gives the feeling that it would not have been entirely written by the magistrate himself, as if “ the judge’s pen had been held » by a third party.
Under French law, the forgery in public writing (article 441-4 of the Penal Code) is a serious offense when it alters the truth in a judicial act. If it were established that an external third party dictated or wrote the decision, this would constitute a denial of justice. Christelle Record and Me Protat have not yet communicated about possible criminal consequences, but doubt exists. The judge of Liberties, seized this Friday by Me Emile Tribalat and Me Protat, was alerted to this but did not take it into account in the decision rendered on April 17, 2026, which did not suspend the execution of the decision of the Toulouse TA and which highlighted Ms. Record’s right to effective recourse. Questioned by France-Soir, the magistrate and the sub-prefect did not respond. The lawyer whose name appears on the order was also unavailable.
Reactions and aftermath
Deeply marked by the means deployed, Christelle Record announced her intention to end her activity as a breeder. His supporters denounce violation of consent and to fundamental freedoms. On the networks, many questions exist regarding the reality of those present on the exploitation of Christelle Record. Based on our observations, people present on the premises may not have been on the list of people authorized to enter the farm. Around 1:25 p.m. while the police were heading towards their means of transport for the mid-day break after having been on the scene of the operation since 7 a.m., a gendarme in a vehicle, answering the question “What is happening now?” told me: “I don’t know, I’m not part of the system, please contact the head of the system.” He did not know her name either and was quick to close the passenger window of his vehicle to leave.
The case goes beyond the simple case of a breeder: it crystallizes the tensions between compulsory health police and consent of operators, between animal welfare (stress of signage) and administrative rigor.
Issues: consent, independence and trust
This operation raises essential questions:
- The veterinary code of ethics authorizes requisitions for health police missions, but does it authorize the use of unsuitable zoo equipment?
- Does the political discourse of proximity to farmers still hold when the State imposes constraints?
- Can administrative justice be suspected of external influence without this calling into question its legitimacy?
- To what extent can the State coerce citizens without respecting conscientious objection and the violation of other fundamental freedoms such as the right to effective remedy which is extinguished since the forced vaccination carried out is irreversible? (And therefore if the Council of State ruled in favor of the breeder, the situation of the unvaccinated state of her animals could not be restored before vaccination.
The Record affair is not over. New appeals are announced. It will remain above all as the symbol of a growing gap between the promises of the State and the reality experienced by certain independent breeders.
Christelle Record had said it: “You will not touch my cattle. »
The state responded with force. The question remains: in the name of what health emergency can we justify breaking trust to this extent while allowing silence to continue on questions relating to fundamental freedoms?
Other breeders are under threat of these compulsory vaccinations. Appeals are reportedly underway to once again try to assert the arguments of respect for fundamental freedoms, in particular that of having effective remedies.
Leave a Reply