In conclusion, our results point out the important role that could be played by hand-reared ducks released for hunting in AIV dynamics. As we did not detect similar AIV strains in shot and hand-reared ducks we could not prove that AIV exchanges exist between these two epidemiological compartments. Yet, due to rearing conditions in GBF, AIV exchange risks seem to be high enough to urge for sanitary control of hand-reared animals prior to their release into the wild, which appears to be highly insufficient so far. Such surveillance would also prevent HPAIV circulation that may arise from the evolution in GBF of H5 LPAIV that proved to be commonly infecting free-living ducks in the Camargue. The world organization for animal health (OIE) stresses that surveillance of AIV infection should be applied to all domesticated birds including those used``for restocking supplies of game'' [53] , but control measures generally appear to be poor in game bird rearing estates. This surveillance gap has recently been highlighted in the USA, where game bird holders reported very variable sanitary practices [54] . The problem appears similar in Europe, including France. Additionally, according to French law, game birds should be ringed to allow for the differentiation of wild and released individuals [55] . Most of GBF owners ignore this obligation. If released birds were clearly identified the specific role they may have in AIV dynamics could be addressed both before and after their release. Our study illustrates the reality of the epidemiological consequences that can result from surveillance gaps and the knowledge that could be gained if released individuals were recognizable. Sharing knowledge and strictly controlling viral exchanges between wild birds and all kinds of domestic ones represent major steps to anticipate and face HPAIV epizootics.