Possible ban on koi and goldfish?

[junglegeorge12]

Quote: Originally Posted by koiczar OF NOTE!!! If you look at the bottom of that "recycled" piece of paper, according to the date, it hasn't yet been written as we haven't reached the 28th of Sept., 2006 yet!!!LOL - AND THAT LOOKS LIKE A TIME/DATE STAMP from a government office. Wow, H.G. Wells is alive and living amongst us and now works for the government!!LOL!!!

Good observation. Raises an interesting point. I would venture a guess alot of competent parties are preparing comments yet to be submitted, as the date on the document gives them until Oct. 30. I think the assumption is the regulation will be enforced exactly as it is written prior to that date, so time can be given to let all concerned parties have a voice. Granted some think they hold the perrenial right to discredit, or try to get rid of voices that do not resonate solely their perceptions or concerns in order to manipulate the system, or that the system of comments and that time period given for consideration should be short circuited to accomodate the desires of a few. My view is that making adjustments prior to the expiration of the full time period stated being given for comments and consideration, is not responsible or following through with what was stated and promised to all the concerned parties in the document.

Don, I agree that the facts about things should be posted, but with one point of concern- that the facts are used to establish the history and the facts as it impacts those parties, not to villianize, negatively label, deride, or otherwise sully their reputations with inane, belittling remarks about them or others. I will start a thread about that, aimed at gathering information. I hope you can refrain from your negative labeling and character assissination struggle. Partial information can be as misleading as false information.

[dizzyfish]

Quote: Originally Posted by koiczar OF NOTE!!! If you look at the bottom of that "recycled" piece of paper, according to the date, it hasn't yet been written as we haven't reached the 28th of Sept., 2006 yet!!!LOL - AND THAT LOOKS LIKE A TIME/DATE STAMP from a government office. Wow, H.G. Wells is alive and living amongst us and now works for the government!!LOL!!!

September 12,2006
9 CFR Part 93
Docket No. APHIS-2006-0 107
This is at the top of that letter. You guys are confused about the received date, which was stamped by good ol Uncle Sam. Must be some government dating system.

[Russell Peters]

Quote: Originally Posted by dizzyfish September 12,2006 9 CFR Part 93 Docket No. APHIS-2006-0 107 This is at the top of that letter. You guys are confused about the received date, which was stamped by good ol Uncle Sam. Must be some government dating system.

The dates don't really matter, it is people who think like this that are dangerous.

[dizzyfish]

Russ,
I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people who worked for state fisheries felt the same as the people in Illinois. To them keeping diseases out of the lakes and rivers is probably far more important than allowing the trade in imported koi to continue. I doubt they will get what they want.
Mitch

[koiczar]

Quote: Originally Posted by dizzyfish September 12,2006 9 CFR Part 93 Docket No. APHIS-2006-0 107 This is at the top of that letter. You guys are confused about the received date, which was stamped by good ol Uncle Sam. Must be some government dating system.

If you'll note on my post, it states that it "looks" like a government stamp. Bottom line is the whole damn thing looks "fishy" to me!! Where did the copy of this statement come from? The writer or the receiver's website?!

[dizzyfish]

Quote: Originally Posted by koiczar If you'll note on my post, it states that it "looks" like a government stamp. Bottom line is the whole damn thing looks "fishy" to me!! Where did the copy of this statement come from? The writer or the receiver's website?!

Mike,
At the end of this post, is the post I made just before the one in question. (p13)I tried to provide the link but it just keep taking you back to the home page, so I left instructions on how to get to the page so you can read all the comments yourself. They have only gotten a few responses so far, which indicates industry isn't to concerned about this. I wanted to make a comment, but the original instructions didn't match the choices on the web page very well. A gentleman from Israel states they are an SVC free country because they had outlawed coldwater fish imports into Israel. I really think people should use the instructions I am providing *again*. And go there and read all the comments to date. You might also consider making a comment yourself if the issue is important to you. Here is is again:

Well I went to www.regulations.gov to make a comment and found the instructions from the first post to this thread didn't work very well. A few have managed to get through though: http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main
Perhaps our man Joe Cool is among them.
Mitch

PS
To get to the right spot you need to type in APHIS-2006-0107 in the search box at the bottom and then click on the blue APHIS-2006-0107 under Docket ID.

[jnorth]

I just went to regulations.gov to read all of the comments. There are 8 of them TOTAL. Seems pretty clear that no one cares.

[dizzyfish]

Well I made my comments and I copied them below. The recent comments by Lawrence Cleveland do suggest that Steve Hopkins may be right about who is pushing for these regulations.
Mitch


I've owned and operated a retail pet store for 21-years. We sell many types of goldfish and koi in our store. Some of our fish come from Sun Pet in Atlanta and I think Tom Beat did a good job of explaining how the new regulations will place an undue hardship on industry. I agree with Mr. Beat that observing the stressed fish at the ports of entry is misleading, as goldfish and koi are packed tight to reduce shipping costs. There is no way having a veterinarian do a visual inspection of the incoming fish will provide him with any type of meaningful information on SVC. This part of the regulation will just be adding to the time the fish have to stay in less than optimal conditions. This regulation will be adding cost to the importing process and causing the increased mortality of a lot of fish in the process. The retail pet trade wants disease free fish and we applaud the effort to control infectious diseases. However, this regulation appears to have been rushed through with little concern for the consequences to American businesses, as well as our trading partners. SVC has been around a long time and there are currently no reported cases in the United States. The risk of introduction of this disease to any American fish farm that employs good quarantine procedures is minimal. I would ask that you take some additional time to study the possible consequences of this new regulation because it is almost certain to cause serious supply and demand issues for every freshwater wholesaler and retail pet store in the country. Many of the varities of fancy goldfish are not being produced in this country in the volume necessary to supply the industry.(If they are being produced at all.) Often the quality of domestic koi and goldfish is inferior to that of other countries. The United States is a free market country and this regulation needs to carefully thought out and should be enforced in a manner that protects our lakes and rivers, but does not unfairly prevent foreign competition. It might be wise to allow some additional time for exporting countries to comply with the new rules, to prevent chaos, and to minimize the potential damage to industry, . Mitch Gibbs Fishey Business Inc. Bowling Green, KY