"Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Bi-Weekly discussion topics.

"Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby spawner » Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:59 pm

Interesting read all-be a few months old.

http://wildsingaporenews.blogspot.com/2 ... er-of.html
User avatar
spawner
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:28 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danger of Drying Up"

Postby FuEl » Mon Aug 16, 2010 1:39 pm

That's Singapore for you. We even have to pay just to have the rights to own a vehicle. It's so hard to own land here. Most of it belongs to the government.
I love Artemac!
User avatar
FuEl
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby FuEl » Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:51 pm

Read this, even better news.

http://www.ava.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/1116 ... ul2010.pdf

I just hope this is not true. Look at point 2.3.2.3.

If it is true, Singapore is effectively banning all import of captive-bred marine ornamentals but encouraging the capture of wild fish.

That will be sad, and utterly stupid.
I love Artemac!
User avatar
FuEl
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby BaboonScience » Sun Sep 12, 2010 3:19 pm

FuEl wrote:Read this, even better news.

http://www.ava.gov.sg/NR/rdonlyres/1116 ... ul2010.pdf

I just hope this is not true. Look at point 2.3.2.3.

If it is true, Singapore is effectively banning all import of captive-bred marine ornamentals but encouraging the capture of wild fish.

That will be sad, and utterly stupid.

This document seems to have conflicting statements.
Documentation:
2.1 Consignment details
i. Name and address of the aquaculture establishment of origin or location of harvest
ii. Date of the shipment
iii. Name of the exporting country
iv. Name and address of the exporter
v. Name of the competent authority of the exporting country
vi. Country of destination
vii. Name and address of the importer

And the section that you refer to:
2.3.2.3 The fish are wild caught and have not been bred or hatched on a farm or other
premises.


Is this saying that the ornamentals cannot be aquacultured but must have the name and address of the aquaculture facility that they come from? :roll:
John
"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth" Jean De La Bruyère (1645-1696)
User avatar
BaboonScience
 
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: High Shoals

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby spawner » Sun Sep 12, 2010 7:29 pm

Its a disease issue. Auzzes have rules like this. It's short sighted, lack of education on the part of people making the rules. They should just require vet papers, disease work ups or certification of disease free and approved companies.

Can you find out what the deal is with their freshwater farms.
User avatar
spawner
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:28 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby PaulG » Mon Sep 13, 2010 4:43 am

Andy,

If you think the current Aussie import restrictions are 'short sighted, lack of education on teh part of ppl making the rule' you ain't seen nothin yet!

This came through or local forum a few days ago.....

Biosecurity Australia recently issued a report which, if implemented, would result in a drastic reduction in imported fish and substantially increase the costs of importing all other species. (fish prices will double or more – can you and your customers afford this?)

This issue has potentially serious implications for the industry. Of particular concern is the large numbers of fish that are needed testing – in most cases it is nearly 50% of each batch of fish imported.
That means for eg 100 discus are imported, 45 are frozen for sampling ( remember - the importer has paid for these fish) and the importer is charged a $250.00 fee for every type of fish tested. So if there are 4 types of fish to be sample its $1000 and hundreds of fish that WERE healthy will be destroyed.



Now this is initially for freshwater but there are also plans to extnd it to saltwater as well IF it happens
User avatar
PaulG
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:44 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Clownfish75 » Mon Sep 13, 2010 5:54 am

sounds good to me Paul.

Im all for it.

Christian
Clownfish75
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:22 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby PaulG » Mon Sep 13, 2010 7:23 am

Clownfish75 wrote:sounds good to me Paul.

Im all for it.

Christian



Dunno about anyone else..... but I prefer a bit of variety in my tank.... not just clownfish :P
User avatar
PaulG
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:44 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby DrHsu » Mon Sep 13, 2010 9:55 am

These requirements have come about from strict EU and Australian import regulations - mainly for the prevention of diseases that may impact food species eg Koi Herpes virus and White spot disease.

S'pore exports were suspended by the EU for a short while due to some deficiencies......The Aussie requirements are even stricter and include more diseases, even some that do not affect ornamental shrimp. Due to the fact that most of our ornamental exports are usually tranships, our usual farm (meaning true farms and import/export facilities) disease surveillance systems cannot meet EU and OZ requirements. Thus there is a need for our export certificates to include health certification from the country of export, plus meeting those other requirements. That was the only way to satisfy the EU authorities.........

Nothing to stop import of captive bred ornamentals - they just have to meet the requirements , meaning mostly just a health cert as the requirements for the wild caught fish do not apply
Li Chieh

Otherwise known as marinebetta in most marine forums.....

.....................................................................

"It's what you learn after you think you know it all..that matters" - Anon
User avatar
DrHsu
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Singapore

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby spawner » Mon Sep 13, 2010 10:54 am

This all makes sense and is where the industry has to go. The more captive high density production we do the more disease that we think , could be resistant to treatment. Is this something that can be done in ponds? I don't see it working on FL very well in ponds as most fish in ponds have to much interaction with outside sources (birds). Love to get your thoughts on that.
User avatar
spawner
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:28 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby FuEl » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:05 am

Hi Li Chieh,

I read through it again. Apparently now decapods all require health certificates as apparently all decapods are listed as susceptible to white spot syndrome virus. I think I came across a study in which Lysmata wurdemanni (or some other peppermint shrimp species, can't remember exactly) were exposed to this virus and they succumbed to it as well.

I did not see why they had to include the additional conditions for import of marine ornamental fish. I went through the disease lists and I could'nt find any common marine ornamental fishes that are listed as susceptible? The fish species listed are either freshwater or brackish.
I love Artemac!
User avatar
FuEl
 
Posts: 1186
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:23 pm
Location: Singapore

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby DrHsu » Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:33 am

Yup...they are all susceptible, thus the conditions......basically to meet EU and Aust requirements, otherwise nothing can be exported to them.

Not sure about the fish....I'm sure they are not talking about white spot virus in fish. My understanding is that for fish it is mostly for FW dz - koi herpes being the big one.

Usually these conditions are quite complicated on first read....but they will make sense once you figure out the big picture.

Andy: We do have many farms with ponds here as well. Some, esp the livebearer farms, use fish netting to cover the ponds to prevent predation - indirectly preventing direct contact as well? I don't know the details of our surveillance program (should be easily found on the AVA website) but I believe it involves sampling and testing for specifics at regular intervals, inspection etc
Li Chieh

Otherwise known as marinebetta in most marine forums.....

.....................................................................

"It's what you learn after you think you know it all..that matters" - Anon
User avatar
DrHsu
 
Posts: 704
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:27 am
Location: Singapore

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby spawner » Tue Sep 14, 2010 9:57 am

I would think that it's important to get an understanding of the current monitoring efforts and regulations. The future holds much more intensive requirements for disease certification, which might be more challenging than developing culture methods and getting production levels up.
User avatar
spawner
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:28 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Braddo » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:44 am

Im with Paul on this one for an AUssie perspective. The industry itself is going to suffer there are 5000+ jobs on the chopping block if these new laws are passed. The funny part is the diseases they are trying to stop are already here. In fact the iridiovirus was found 30 years ago in native stocks in local creeks and rivers. It has been found every year since.
The problem I think and this is just my opinion the powers that be have been trying to stop the aquarium industry here for many years back in my 20's I was involved in some groups that were fighting against law changes back then.
Now I believe this is just an excuse to bring into affect what they have had planned for that long and longer.
Braddo
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Braddo » Tue Sep 28, 2010 3:46 am

and one more thing it will be oly a matter of time before they start making the local breeders to batch test their fish as well. So dont think they will just stop at importers.
Braddo
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby onsan » Tue Sep 28, 2010 4:44 am

i think it's important to remember that the biosecurity australia report is specifically for imported fish, and on that level I have to side with it being a good thing for our environment.
To be blase' about it is not to have learnt from our mistakes from importing other species that later became invasive, animals like the canetoad and tilapi and european carp.
Another notable example is the P.volitans intrusion into the caribbean, gulf and florida ecosystems.
Yes it can potentially limit the range of exotic species we are able to have, but to do nothing is to put our environment at the expense of a hobby.
onsan
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:01 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby snowmaker » Tue Sep 28, 2010 7:16 am

learnt from our mistakes from importing other species that later became invasive


Has anyone considered the taking on and dumping of ship ballast water and sediments? This is likely responsible for most invasive species introductions world wide. It is NEVER mentioned when it comes to talking about marine ornamentals, disease and pathogens, but it happens on a huge scale on a daily basis.

Regarding the whole Atlantic lionfish mess, most are very quick to blame aquarists for this - as ships in port in Miami are pumping out millions of gallons of sea water that came from who knows where. I know there are laws that try to manage ballast water dumping, but I can't imagine how they could be enforced.

I only mention all this in case someone in an official capacity for the marine ornamental trade might read up and argue this side of the point .
In all things of nature there is something of the marvelous.
--Aristotle
User avatar
snowmaker
 
Posts: 79
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:42 am
Location: Maine, USA

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Braddo » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:21 pm

The canetoad was released by the government to combat cane beetles, TIlapia was a fisheries release for better freshwater fishing. Same with the mouth almighty in Lake Eachem. So it is easy to swap the blame to the aquarists. The new biosecurity report is more about not letting diseases into Australia but the ones they are talking about are already here.

I have to agree with them on the grey list fish though the damage things like snakeheads, arowana, tiger dats would do especially in north Qld would be devestating. The fish they are targeting with the iridiovirus have all been approved for import into the country. The main thing that is going against them with the virus report is manpower there is no were near enough of it to carry out all tests. Some importers will be made to quarentine fish for up to 6 months until testing is done.

I am also against the illegal import of fish into Australia as what these people dont realise is that everytime some fish are bought in and sold the government knows about it and this gives them more amunition to remove the schedule 6 list of allowable immports.
Braddo
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby spawner » Tue Sep 28, 2010 8:35 pm

snowmaker wrote:
learnt from our mistakes from importing other species that later became invasive


Has anyone considered the taking on and dumping of ship ballast water and sediments? This is likely responsible for most invasive species introductions world wide. It is NEVER mentioned when it comes to talking about marine ornamentals, disease and pathogens, but it happens on a huge scale on a daily basis.

Regarding the whole Atlantic lionfish mess, most are very quick to blame aquarists for this - as ships in port in Miami are pumping out millions of gallons of sea water that came from who knows where. I know there are laws that try to manage ballast water dumping, but I can't imagine how they could be enforced.

I only mention all this in case someone in an official capacity for the marine ornamental trade might read up and argue this side of the point .



Your correct about ballast water issue in general but Lionfish invasion is 100% due to the aquarium trade. Sure Ballast water is a big issue, but there is clear evidence that the aquairum trade is responsible for most if not all the exotic marine fish found in South Florida. Lionfish are the only ones that have really invaded successfully.
User avatar
spawner
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:28 am

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby onsan » Wed Sep 29, 2010 3:24 am

Braddo wrote:The main thing that is going against them with the virus report is manpower there is no were near enough of it to carry out all tests. Some importers will be made to quarentine fish for up to 6 months until testing is done.


i think this is one of the main reasons, if you ban imports and then allow small limited numbers of breeders or such to import them under a permit system, then you are much better able to manage quarantine protocols, not only that, you'd turn something from being a burden on resources to a cash cow.
How much do you think they'd charge for a breeder to import an exotic species on a banned list?
onsan
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:01 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Braddo » Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:25 am

The thing is breeders will never be allowed to import. They have placed a hold on registering qrooms. Plus you will never import any fish on a banned list. Once it is banned it is banned never to be allowed again.
Can I ask have you been involved or looked into importing fish?
Braddo
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Clownfish75 » Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:58 am

Hi Brad, i am well involved in all aspects of the hobby.

One should remember the motivations for the restrictions on freshwater imports would be very different to any restrictions placed on Marine imports, the same issues do not manifest in both cases.

The information provided by LFS in the industry in Australia is very pro import and obviously the government are pro restriction, the real truth of the matter lies in the middle ground.

Given that MOFIB essentially is all about the culture of marine organisms, the concept of any one country restricting imports is good and bad, MOFIBs place would be to analyse why these things are being proposed and endevour to help the marine ornamental industry not end up in the same hole the freshwater one is in.

Many lessons can be learnt from the proposal of these restrictions here in Australia.

The viruses they talk about might already be here, but that is not an arguement to constantly re-introduce them.

Christian
Clownfish75
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:22 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Braddo » Sun Oct 03, 2010 3:58 am

I agree with you Christian and thing sin marine are already starting to change I rember when anyone could import marine fish into their lfs because of no quarentine restrictions. NOw only those with registered q rooms can import marines.
The place I work at has just released from quarentine 1000 tails of marine fish.
As for breeders importing their own unless they already have a registered q room it is not going to happen.

I dont understand however you could say re-introduce something that is already here. In fact many of the places that export to Australia have to have all vet documentation up to Australia's standards now. But my arguement against what is happening with the freshwater(iridiovirus) is that you bring in 30 of one colour morph of a species of fish, you have to give 19 of those 30 for batch testing(no financial compensation), those 19 a killed(no return of fish if all is clear), then you have to pay $250 per batch(so if you have 20 colourmorphs of guppies that is paid for each colour morph) on top of losing the 19 fish, That then leaves you with 11 out of 30 fish(you have already prepaid to the overseas exporter) available to sell.

One bonus of this it will limit the number of importers as the small ones will not be able to afford the costs. But it will monopolise for the big importers so these would be the only ones for a cash cow receipt so to speak. There is already talks happening for the marine side of things to follow suit before they have even looked at sorting issues out in the freshwater side of things. So it will affect everybody in every part of the industry.
The other problem it will not just stop at the importers but breeders here in Australia will then be targeted. Not too mention the Aussie breeders cant feed 5% of the required fish sold in lfs right aroudn the country. This will then limit our hobby even more. I also think that you will find the lfs are more than happy to find middle ground in this but the government side of things is just not interested.

In my honest opinion and those of many well known throughout the industry here in Australia it is seeming like the begining of the end for this multi million dollar industry here.
Braddo
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:07 pm

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Clownfish75 » Sun Oct 03, 2010 4:47 am

I agree with some things you say and disagree with plenty.

I seriously doubt the government will test a quantity of different colour variations of a fish as they have no way to define them as different, they are the same species after all.

Iridiovirus is nasty stuff, look at those hidious dwarf gouramis they should have been banned years ago.

Ornamental aquaculture will only have the same rules applied to it as food fish aquaculture does, so i dont see the introduction of anything that doesnt already need to be done, many viruses are notafiable.

I dont for a moment think this is the begining of the end, some restrictions will make the aquaculture side of things flourish, i have reconsidered my no freshwater stance for aquaculture and may move into it in the future. I think there will be a change but i think the industry will role with the punches.

Christian
Clownfish75
 
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 3:22 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: "Ornamental Fish Trade in Danager of Drying Up"

Postby Braddo » Sun Oct 03, 2010 5:16 am

I seriously doubt the government will test a quantity of different colour variations of a fish as they have no way to define them as different, they are the same species after all.

Actually has already been passed. As explained to us by the q officers at pick up of our new shipment. It is because they are classed from a different batch or holding pond by many exporters overseas. Therefore must be tested seperately.
Ornamental aquaculture will only have the same rules applied to it as food fish aquaculture does, so i dont see the introduction of anything that doesnt already need to be done, many viruses are notafiable.

Already has different rules to food fish. If you hold a aquaculture permit for ornamental fishes you can only breed what is on schedule 6 or the import list NO other species at all. Also you can only be classed as a hobby if you have under 10 000l complete holding volume in NSW, QLd is soon to follow suit. Current rules state 5000L or under 50m square of footprint space on tanks. Ornamental aquaculture is classed as a different entity to food fish because of the amount of exotic species used compared to the food fish aquaculture. This is an area I have been involved in for over 15 years.
It is also the reason I watch what volume of water is on my property at the moment.
Braddo
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 8:07 pm

Next

Return to Discussion Topics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron