Aussies Considering Release of KHV to Kill Carp

[mrbradleybradley]

"I don’t believe there is an established and popularly promoted set of best management practices for koi-keepers in the U.S. as relate to the issues that most concern government regulators. Is there in Australia?"

Yes. The following has been published within the past 6 months.

Koi keeping and the environment

# It is our duty to safeguard the environment from any release of koi into rivers and lakes.

# Please do not dispose of unwanted fish or aquatic plants into Australian waterways. Teach your colleagues and children to respect the environment through responsible actions.

# Koi associations will take care of any unwanted fish you wish to dispose of. Contact your association for further details.

# Your responsible actions will ensure that koi keepers are seen by the government and the public as environmentally trustworthy and ensure that our hobby can be enjoyed by future generations.

Endorsed by Australia’s leading koi societies

On KHV, remember the research being conducted by the CSIRO is a feasability study and not a planned release. I have previously published correspondence on the Australian Forum.
http://koi2day.com/forum/index.php?topic=807.0

from my corrspondence

In the case of Koi herpesvirus, the regulation would be very strong indeed and there would be a need for widespread community consultation. The concerns of the commercial fishing and Koi industry would have to be taken into consideration. All State, Territory and Federal Ministers would be involved through the Biological Control Act. We are a long way off this stage - CSIRO has only just commenced testing the virus in Geelong.

Biological control has only been used successfully twice for vertebrate pests, both times in Australia on rabbits (1950 with myxoma virus and 1996 with RHDV - calici). In the case of RHDV there is a vaccine available for rabbit fanciers and the industry. Vaccination and quarantine has been the way of managing the biological control and industry interface. The rabbit industry has grown in the decade since the release of RHDV while the nation has benefited by an estimated $5,000,000,000 of rabbit control. This shows that biological control can co-exist with an industry.

Koi breeders and fanciers have every right to hold concerns about this research and I welcome any feedback or comments and I am happy to pass them on to relevant people. I have joined your forum, so hopefully you will get a quicker response in the future. Our CRC would be pleased to keep you up to date with research progress.

Sincerely

Tony Peacock

[koicluboftheair]

Tony,
Thanks for the information and your perspective. Regarding the Best Management Practices the addressing of koi releases it would seem is far too non-specific. A regulator in Vermont advised me that their state's law prevents release via wastewater that is routinely violated and they do not want more koi in their state as a result. The BMPs of Australia as applied in the case of the Vermont example would be far too weak to provide the sort of specific attention needed to prevent further regulation.

Regarding your comparison of the use of biological controls on nuisance rabbits and how the rabbit industry can coexist I'd follow up and ask how many other genus and species were the biological controls tested on prior to release in the environment? In the example of the fish populations potentially impacted by a government endorsed KHV release it would seem far more species might need testing to ensure their refractory status prior to release. Plus concerns of latency are an additional factor. In the case of other diseases tested for refractory status such as VHS different genomes of the disease demonstrate varied refractory species specific responses.

For the record response from Vermont regulator Ken Cox:
Mr. Hawley,
The book that the recent newspaper article seems to reference is titled Fishes of Vermont. I am one of the three co-authors. The book is primarily a field identification guide to the 92 species of fish ( native and naturalized) known to occur in the state, as well as provide distributional, biological and general habitat information on each species. Nowhere in the book is it stated or implied “that "koi" are found in the wilds of Vermont .” Vermont does have several naturalized populations of wild-type common carp Cyprinus carpio, as you know to be the progenitor of koi, but no discernible populations of the ornamental strains are known yet to occur in the wild here. Carp became established in the wild here in the late 1800s. In more recent years, interest in maintaining koi in small private ponds and ornamental pools has increased among some Vermont landowners. Frequently the species has successfully reproduced in these small ponds and in some cases to nuisance levels. The principal source of koi has been the aquarium trade and garden suppliers.

Vermont state regulation Title 10 § 4605 (Placing fish in waters; fish importation permits) states: “(a) A person shall not introduce or attempt to introduce: (2) any fish, except trout or salmon, into any waters except private ponds lacking access to other waters of the state (emphasis added).” Unfortunately, many pond owners are not informed of this regulation, or perhaps in some instances elect to ignore it, and release koi into their pond. With few exceptions these ponds were constructed with outflows that discharge to public waters providing the opportunity for koi, especially their young progeny, to escape from the pond and potentially obtain access to public lakes, ponds, large rivers and wetland habitats, where their presence is of concern to this agency. As an exotic species with the potential of altering aquatic habitats and fish communities, the expansion of the species presence in the state is not wanted.

Regards & thanks for your efforts Tony,

John

[mitten]

Please let me quote Mr. Bradley Bradley Bradley-

"This topic is one that can become very emotive very quickly & very quickly reach conclusions based on fear rather than fact. I am only interested in fact. And right now there are no facts."

And let me quote the fresh faced JR-

"Good lord, you just can't stop yourself, can you?"

And next, I can thank George of the Jungle for helping me overcome my "ignore list" fears.

And finally, let me tell you again how much I look forward to meeting you in Orlando, John Hawley.

It's OK if you don't come. I'll understand. But, I figure you've got to, it being Orlando and all. But, if not, maybe I can join some north Florida koi club and meet you that way. Gainsville and Jacksonville are both near where I am moving.

Are you from Puerto Rico?

[koicluboftheair]

Windowman,
As for the facts of the matter of this thread Australia is considering release of KHV into the environment. Is that something you support or will you wait until the scientists and regulators of Australia make their decision prior to formulating your opinion? I happen to believe addressing the issue prior to their formulation of policy is important. Do we know how many effected industries and hobbyists are aware of this issue? Spike seemed to think they had abandoned this.



Regards,
John Hawley

[tom&zuma]

Okay, these "river rabbits" are being made into fish meal to be used as fertilizer. Considering that fish meal is a primary ingredient in koi food, what is the chance that KHV could get into this food source?

So we need to know the origin of every ingredient in the food we buy?

[koicluboftheair]

Quote: Originally Posted by tom&zuma Okay, these "river rabbits" are being made into fish meal to be used as fertilizer. Considering that fish meal is a primary ingredient in koi food, what is the chance that KHV could get into this food source? So we need to know the origin of every ingredient in the food we buy?

Terrific point if Australian regulators actually went through with it after their research it could destroy other industries such as any fish meal business for export and other live fish export business via getting put on the OIE list of KHV hotzones. There have been other industries hurt in the way you describe the possible scenario.

[mrbradleybradley]

I have previously published correspondence on the Australian Forum.
http://koi2day.com/forum/index.php?topic=807.0

from my corrspondence

In the case of Koi herpesvirus, the regulation would be very strong indeed and there would be a need for widespread community consultation. The concerns of the commercial fishing and Koi industry would have to be taken into consideration. All State, Territory and Federal Ministers would be involved through the Biological Control Act. We are a long way off this stage - CSIRO has only just commenced testing the virus in Geelong.


Biological control has only been used successfully twice for vertebrate pests, both times in Australia on rabbits (1950 with myxoma virus and 1996 with RHDV - calici). In the case of RHDV there is a vaccine available for rabbit fanciers and the industry. Vaccination and quarantine has been the way of managing the biological control and industry interface. The rabbit industry has grown in the decade since the release of RHDV while the nation has benefited by an estimated $5,000,000,000 of rabbit control. This shows that biological control can co-exist with an industry.


Koi breeders and fanciers have every right to hold concerns about this research and I welcome any feedback or comments and I am happy to pass them on to relevant people. I have joined your forum, so hopefully you will get a quicker response in the future. Our CRC would be pleased to keep you up to date with research progress.


Sincerely


Tony Peacock

was that read correctly this time?

[koicluboftheair]

While biological control can co-exist as you note with an industry in the case of the RHDV on nuisance rabbits as you also point out there is a vaccine. I was informed of some applicable perspective when speaking recently with Michael P. Masser, Ph.D., Professor and Extension Fisheries Specialist Texas A&M University and President of the World Aquaculture Society about their Sustainable Aquaculture Conference in San Antonio, on Feb. 26- March 2. Masser acknowledged the obvious that we will never be able to raise all of the 25K+ species of fish in aquaculture. Nor will we be able to test all species for refractory response to biological controls. As fisheries are under various levels of political authority via local, regional, national and international auspices the impacts of any such actions by any agency will likely have far reaching biological, commercial, and political implications.
Thank you for your willingness to assist those of us interested in seeing CSIRO and other authorities make the right decisions.