Home | About Us | Contact Us


Koi Forum - Koi-Bito Magazine straight from Japan
Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 148

Thread: Possible ban on koi and goldfish?

  1. #11
    Honmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Martinez,CA
    Posts
    4,611
    Quote Originally Posted by B.Scott View Post
    So how are you gewtting around the ban Russel?
    B.Scott
    Hi Scott,

    Steve is right, it is not a ban. What APHIS has done is set up a system that requires paper work, time and money but I think it is a great idea. IMO it will stop imports from countries that don't have healthy fish. These imports are usually bought by retailers trying to make extra money with cheaper fish that are usually not healthy. The process is that we have to fill out an application, APHIS has set up ports of entry and each port of entry has one certified Vet that is responsible for all shipments. Our Vet is in Sacramento. We have to notify him 72 hours prior to the shipment landing and he has to come inspect the Koi at the cargo area when they come in. Here is the part that hurts, we have to pay him a fee to inspect the Koi and for ALL of his travel time to and from the airport. On the Japanese side we have to get SVC certificates from the breeders we import from. The process of clearing the Koi will take longer, but it will insure that the Koi are free from SVC. We have already spoken with our Vet about the whole process and are ready to IMPORT Koi.

  2. #12
    Jumbo B.Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Holland
    Posts
    837
    I think the big IF in this whole situation is the fact that the preventive measures demanded by the restrictions means that measures of control that meet the US requirements but be in place and working for TWO YEARS before a company is eligible to export to the US. This means if the Japanese protocols have any discrepancy with us requirements they may well be forced to suspend exports to the US for 2 years. This will be bad news for the breeders and very bad news for the US dealers.

    B.Scott

  3. #13
    Daihonmei PapaBear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Davenport, Oklahoma
    Posts
    6,726

    Thumbs up Short Notice

    I have a feeling the short notice may have been purposeful in order to prevent any last minute "dumping" of non-compliant fish from breeders who won't qualify under the new regs.
    The added expense involved in testing/clearing is a downside, but in the big scheme of things it had to happen. Too many outbreaks of disease lately to allow it to keep happening.
    IMHO the Japanese will barely be affected. The Vietnamese and other SE Asian breeders who are relative newcomers with little or no controls in place will no doubt be taking the brunt of the impact. That is IMO a very GOOD thing. Those who have no regs are the most likely sources of everything we don't want in our ponds anyway.
    In the meantime, the cheap "tateshita" market can be filled from domestic sources instead of sick imports dumped on our shores by unscrupulous breeders and brokers with no reputation to lose.
    Larry Iles
    Oklahoma

  4. #14
    Honmei
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Martinez,CA
    Posts
    4,611
    Quote Originally Posted by B.Scott View Post
    I think the big IF in this whole situation is the fact that the preventive measures demanded by the restrictions means that measures of control that meet the US requirements but be in place and working for TWO YEARS before a company is eligible to export to the US. This means if the Japanese protocols have any discrepancy with us requirements they may well be forced to suspend exports to the US for 2 years. This will be bad news for the breeders and very bad news for the US dealers.

    B.Scott
    For the Japanese SVC has been reportable for many years and the testing has all been in place long enough that it WILL be NO problem for all of the major Japanese breeders.

    Russ

  5. #15
    Guest Nancy M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Lakewood, So Calif
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by Russell Peters View Post
    Hi Scott,

    Steve is right, it is not a ban. What APHIS has done is set up a system that requires paper work, time and money but I think it is a great idea. IMO it will stop imports from countries that don't have healthy fish. These imports are usually bought by retailers trying to make extra money with cheaper fish that are usually not healthy. The process is that we have to fill out an application, APHIS has set up ports of entry and each port of entry has one certified Vet that is responsible for all shipments. Our Vet is in Sacramento. We have to notify him 72 hours prior to the shipment landing and he has to come inspect the Koi at the cargo area when they come in. Here is the part that hurts, we have to pay him a fee to inspect the Koi and for ALL of his travel time to and from the airport. On the Japanese side we have to get SVC certificates from the breeders we import from. The process of clearing the Koi will take longer, but it will insure that the Koi are free from SVC. We have already spoken with our Vet about the whole process and are ready to IMPORT Koi.
    Russ
    My understanding is that, you need a Vet (approved by APHIS) to come out to your place of bussiness and certify that your store does not have SVC and or any other health issues with fish, and that you have a quarantine faclity for newly imported fish. The vet from APHIS, you need them to inspect the fish at the port, and they will charge you for inspection fee, ranging from $375 - $550 per shipment, on top of normal shipping fee's.

  6. #16
    Oyagoi dizzyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,448
    I found this on the OIE web site.



    CHAPTER 2.1.4.


    </B>SPRING VIRAEMIA OF CARP

    Article 2.1.4.1.

    For the purposes of the Aquatic Code, spring viraemia of carp (SVC) means infection with the viral species SVC virus (SVCV) tentatively placed in the genus Vesiculovirus of the family Rhabdoviridae.

    Methods for surveillance and diagnosis are provided in the Aquatic Manual.

    Article 2.1.4.2.

    Scope The recommendations in this Chapter apply to: common carp (Cyprinus carpio carpio) and koi carp (Cyprinus carpio koi), crucian carp (Carassius carassius), sheatfish (also known as European catfish or wels) (Silurus glanis), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis), grass carp (white amur) (Ctenopharyngodon idella), goldfish (Carassius auratus), orfe (Leuciscus idus), and tench (Tinca tinca). These recommendations also apply to any other susceptible species referred to in the Aquatic Manual when traded internationally.
    <B>

    Article 2.1.4.3.

    Commodities
    1. When authorising importation or transit of the following commodities, Competent Authorities should not require any SVC related conditions, regardless of the SVC status of the exporting country, zone or compartment:
      1. From the species in Article 2.1.4.2., for any purpose:
        1. commercially-sterile canned fish;
        2. leather made from fish skin.
      2. The following commodities destined for human consumption from the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. which have been prepared in such a way as to minimise the likelihood of alternative uses:
        1. chemically preserved products (e.g. smoked, salted, pickled, marinated, etc.);
        2. products (e.g. ready prepared meals, fish oil) that have been heat treated in a manner to ensure the inactivation of the pathogen;
        3. eviscerated fish (chilled or frozen) packaged for direct retail trade;
        4. fillets or cutlets (chilled or frozen);
        5. dried eviscerated fish (including air dried, flame dried and sun dried).
      For the commodities referred to in point 1b), Member Countries should consider introducing internal measures to prevent the commodity being used for any purpose other than for human consumption.
    2. When authorising importation or transit of the commodities of a species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2., other than those referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3., Competent Authorities should require the conditions prescribed in Articles 2.1.4.7. to 2.1.4.12. relevant to the SVC status of the exporting country, zone or compartment.
    3. When considering the importation or transit of any live commodity of a species not referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from an exporting country, zone or compartment not declared free of SVC, Competent Authorities of the importing country should conduct an analysis of the risk of introduction, establishment and spread of SVCV and the potential consequences associated with importation of the commodity, prior to a decision. The exporting country should be informed of the outcome of this assessment.
    Article 2.1.4.4.

    Spring viraemia of carp free country A country may make a self-declaration of freedom from SVC if it meets the conditions in points 1, 2, 3 or 4 below.

    If a country shares a zone with one or more other countries, it can only make a self-declaration of freedom from SVC if all the areas covered by the shared water are declared SVC free countries or zones (see Article 2.1.4.5.).
    1. A country where none of the susceptible species is present may make a self-declaration of freedom from SVC when basic biosecurity conditions have been met continuously in the country for at least the past 2 years.
    OR
    1. A country where the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. are present but there has never been any observed occurrence of the disease for at least the past 25 years despite conditions that are conducive to its clinical expression, as described in Chapter 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, may make a self-declaration of freedom from SVC when basic biosecurity conditions have been met continuously in the country for at least the past 10 years.
    OR
    1. A country where the last observed occurrence of the disease was within the past 25 years or where the infection status prior to targeted surveillance was unknown, for example because of the absence of conditions conducive to clinical expression, as described in Chapter 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, may make a self-declaration of freedom from SVC when:
      1. basic biosecurity conditions have been met continuously for at least the past 2 years; and
      2. targeted surveillance, as described in Chapters 1.1.4. and 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, has been in place for at least the last 2 years without detection of SVCV.
    OR
    1. A country that has made a self-declaration of freedom from SVC but in which the disease is subsequently detected may not make a self-declaration of freedom from SVC again until the following conditions have been met:
      1. on detection of the disease, the affected area was declared an infected zone and a buffer zone was established; and
      2. infected populations have been safely destroyed or removed from the infected zone by means that minimise the risk of further spread of the disease, and the appropriate disinfection procedures (see Aquatic Manual) have been completed; and
      3. targeted surveillance, as described in Chapters 1.1.4. and 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, has been in place for at least the last 2 years without detection of SVCV.
      In the meantime, part of the non-affected area may be declared a free zone provided that it meets the conditions in point 3 of Article 2.1.4.5.
    Article 2.1.4.5.

    Spring viraemia of carp free zone or free compartment A zone or compartment within the territory of one or more countries not declared free from SVC may be declared free by the Competent Authority(ies) of the country(ies) concerned, if the zone or compartment meets the conditions referred to in points 1, 2, 3 or 4 below.

    If a zone or compartment extends over more than one country, it can only be declared an SVC free zone or compartment if all the Competent Authorities confirm that the conditions have been met.
    1. A zone or compartment where none of the susceptible species is present may be declared free from SVC when basic biosecurity conditions have been met continuously in the zone or compartment for at least the past 2 years.
    OR
    1. A zone or compartment where the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. are present but there has never been any observed occurrence of the disease for at least the past 25 years despite conditions that are conducive to its clinical expression, as described in Chapter 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, may be declared free from SVC when basic biosecurity conditions have been met continuously in the zone or compartment for at least the past 10 years.
    OR
    1. A zone or compartment where the last observed occurrence of the disease was within the past 25 years or where the infection status prior to targeted surveillance was unknown, for example because of the absence of conditions conducive to clinical expression, as described in Chapter 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, may be declared free from SVC when:
      1. basic biosecurity conditions have been met continuously for at least the past 2 years; and
      2. targeted surveillance, as described in Chapters 1.1.4. and 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, has been in place for at least the last 2 years without detection of SVCV.
    OR
    1. A zone previously declared free from SVC but in which the disease is detected may not be declared free from SVC again until the following conditions have been met:
      1. on detection of the disease, the affected area was declared an infected zone and a buffer zone was established; and
      2. infected populations have been safely destroyed or removed from the infected zone by means that minimise the risk of further spread of the disease, and the appropriate disinfection procedures (see Aquatic Manual) have been completed; and
      3. targeted surveillance, as described in Chapters 1.1.4. and 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, has been in place for at least the last 2 years without detection of SVCV.
    Article 2.1.4.6.

    Maintenance of free status A country, zone or compartment that is declared free from SVC following the provisions of points 1 or 2 of Articles 2.1.4.4. or 2.1.4.5., as relevant, may maintain its status as SVC free provided that basic biosecurity conditions are continuously maintained.

    A country, zone or compartment that is declared free from SVC following the provisions of point 3 of Articles 2.1.4.4. or 2.1.4.5., as relevant, may discontinue targeted surveillance and maintain its status as SVC free provided that conditions that are conducive to clinical expression of SVC, as described in Chapter 2.1.4. of the Aquatic Manual, exist and basic biosecurity conditions are continuously maintained.

    However, for declared free zones or compartments in infected countries and in all cases where conditions are not conducive to clinical expression of SVC, targeted surveillance needs to be continued at a level determined by the Competent Authority on the basis of the likelihood of infection.

    Article 2.1.4.7.

    Importation of live animals from a country, zone or compartment declared free from spring viraemia of carp When importing live aquatic animals of the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from a country, zone or compartment declared free from SVC, the Competent Authority of the importing country should require an international aquatic animal health certificate issued by the Competent Authority of the exporting country or a certifying official approved by the importing country, certifying that, on the basis of the procedures described in Articles 2.1.4.4. or 2.1.4.5. (as applicable), the place of production of the consignment is a country, zone or compartment declared free from SVC.

    The certificate should be in accordance with the Model Certificate in Appendix 4.1.1.

    This Article does not apply to commodities referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3.

    Article 2.1.4.8.

    Importation of live animals for aquaculture from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from spring viraemia of carp When importing, for aquaculture, aquatic animals of the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from SVC, the Competent Authority of the importing country should assess the risk and apply risk mitigation measures such as:
    1. the direct delivery into and holding of the consignment in quarantine facilities;
    2. the continuous isolation of the imported aquatic animals and their first generation progeny from the local environment;
    3. the treatment of all effluent and waste material in a manner that ensures inactivation of SVCV.
    This Article does not apply to commodities referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3.

    Article 2.1.4.9.

    Importation of live animals for processing for human consumption from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from spring viraemia of carp When importing, for processing for human consumption, aquatic animals of the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from SVC, the Competent Authority of the importing country should require that:
    1. the consignment is delivered directly to and held in quarantine facilities for slaughter and processing to one of the products referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3. or other products authorised by the Competent Authority; and
    2. all effluent and waste material from the processing are treated in a manner that ensures inactivation of SVCV.
    This Article does not apply to commodities referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3.

    Article 2.1.4.10.

    Importation of live animals intended for use in animal feed, or for agricultural, industrial or pharmaceutical use from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from spring viraemia of carp When importing, for use in animal feed, or for agricultural, industrial or pharmaceutical use, aquatic animals of the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from SVC, the Competent Authority of the importing country should require that:
    1. the consignment is delivered directly to and held in quarantine facilities for slaughter and processing to products authorised by the Competent Authority; and
    2. all effluent and waste material from the processing are treated in a manner that ensures inactivation of SVCV.
    This Article does not apply to commodities referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3.

    Article 2.1.4.11.

    Importation of products from a country, zone or compartment declared free from spring viraemia of carp When importing aquatic animal products of the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from a country, zone or compartment declared free from SVC, the Competent Authority of the importing country should require an international aquatic animal health certificate issued by the Competent Authority of the exporting country or a certifying official approved by the importing country certifying that, on the basis of the procedures described in Articles 2.1.4.4. or 2.1.4.5. (as applicable), the place of production of the consignment is a country, zone or compartment declared free from SVC.

    The certificate should be in accordance with the Model Certificate in Appendix 4.2.1.

    This Article does not apply to commodities referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3.

    Article 2.1.4.12.

    Importation of products from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from spring viraemia of carp When importing aquatic animal products of the species referred to in Article 2.1.4.2. from a country, zone or compartment not declared free from SVC, the Competent Authority of the importing country should assess the risk and apply appropriate risk mitigation measures.

    In the case of dead fish, whether eviscerated or uneviscerated, such risk mitigation measures may include:
    1. the direct delivery into and holding of the consignment in biosecure/quarantine facilities for processing to one of the products referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3. or other products authorised by the Competent Authority;
    2. the treatment of all effluent and waste material in a manner that ensures inactivation of SVCV.
    This Article does not apply to commodities referred to in point 1 of Article 2.1.4.3.
    </B>

  7. #17
    Tategoi
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    311
    I think it is problematic that these rules were promulgated as INTERIM rules. Ordinarily, rules go through a hearing process to ensure that stakeholders understand all of the ramifications, and that the law makers and regulators have had the opportunity to get the result they want with the least number of unintended consequences.

    That process was bypassed here, with the result that even koi importers are obviously unclear about what the rules mean, and whether or not their vendors in Japan can comply.

    I don't see why the USDA could not have made some clear rules, put them into effect three years from now, and given the industry a chance to catch up. It is not like the US is currently SVC free, after all.

    I intend to write a letter to that effect to the USDA as a hobbyist--I would urge you to do the same.
    ChrisC

  8. #18
    Oyagoi bekko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hakipu'u
    Posts
    1,383
    For the Japanese SVC has been reportable for many years and the testing has all been in place long enough that it WILL be NO problem for all of the major Japanese breeders.
    Russ, wouldn't the Japanese breeders who ship to the EU already be doing this paperwork?

    The vet from APHIS, you need them to inspect the fish at the port, and they will charge you for inspection fee, ranging from $375 - $550 per shipment, on top of normal shipping fee's.
    Nancy, I thought the inspection fee was $94 per shipment. Do they need to inspect facilities for every shipment? That is not the norm. What if you go through a trans-shipper in LA or somewhere? Once received by the trans-shipper, wouldn't the fish become domestic cargo?

    I want to see the text of the regulations but that that site is down. Did anyone save a copy of the regs when they had the chance?

    -stevehop

  9. #19
    Oyagoi
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Puerto Rico
    Posts
    1,230
    Me oh my. Things r looking better for domestic breeders all the time. The way I read that, you cannot import them at all from any breedery after Sep 29 if they have not been meeting the US requirements for it for at least 2 yrs in their facility. So any idea who has and has not been doing that?

    I would imagine noone, since it was not a thought before. I doubt the EU protocol is the exact same as the US requirement. This stuff will hit the shipping airlines and clearing agents workstations this month sometime. Anyone know who has and has not been complying with those standards, especially since they did not knwo they needed to, in Japan??? Are we facing a 2 yr shut down on importing???

    Wonder if the khv legislation will be even tougher since it so deadly and so much more prevalent these days? It has to be coming.
    'Sometimes it take a talking donkey to turn things around in the right direction, ask Balaam."

  10. #20
    Oyagoi dizzyfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,448
    There can be no doubt this development will create both hardship and opportunity. Some of the farms that have survived disease outbreaks in the past may actually be the best prepared to comply with the new regulations. I agree that the high end Japanese koi dealers are probably way ahead of the curve compared to other developing countries. Israel may also benefit from this new regulation. If we can ignore the disease issue for a moment I will say the quality (colors, variety, etc.) coming out of countries like Thailand, Malaysia, China, Korea, and possibly Viet Nam was quite good. Perhaps they were using hormones or some other form of cheating to achieve the great coloring, but the results were a very marketable fish at a very competitive price, at least from the retail perspective. Many of the long finned koi coming out of countries like Thailand were excellent. I would suspect that *most* of the freshwater wholesalers in the United States were transhipping in koi from countries that will have a difficult time complying with the conditions necessary to prevent their product from being banned. (I'm sure they'll consider it as such.)

    This is also from a retail pet store perspective, but I think the goldfish segment of the industry is likely to be much harder hit than the koi part. Aside from most comets and many fantails, black moors, shubunkins, and sarassa comets, most all the really fancy goldfish come from suspect countries. I would imagine this news will create great concern for many of the freshwater wholesalers. Of even greater concern to retailers and wholesalers is the fact that these viruses can also be carried by species outside the current list. I have heard that gouramis in particular can carry diseases like KHV. Often these fish are co-mingled in central filter systems with the goldfish varieties. So you could eliminate SVC coming in with goldfish and koi, but have it spread to them from other species they were housed with. The overall impact this will have, may depend on just how serious APHIS is about eliminating SVC from our country.

    What all this may mean is that the price of decent quality koi and goldfish will go way up, as demand will far exceed the restricted supply. If you're a high end dealer with suppliers that are in compliance it could be a bonanza. The same could be said for domestic koi farms. If your a middle income consumer or a dealer caught somewhere in the middle you may be in for a little bit tougher time of it. Despite the short term pain this will cause, the overall gains in disease prevention will ultimately be a positive. Does anyone really think writting in at this juncture will do any good?
    Mitch
    Last edited by dizzyfish; 09-03-2006 at 10:23 AM. Reason: Fix typos

Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Update - Ban on Koi in Australia
    By mrbradleybradley in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-17-2016, 11:55 PM
  2. Koi and Goldfish in Tung Choi or Goldfish St, HK
    By bwleung in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-17-2009, 03:05 AM
  3. Ichi-ban.....
    By markgardner in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 09-24-2008, 11:58 AM
  4. Stop The Ban On Koi In Australia
    By mrbradleybradley in forum Main Forum
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 03-10-2006, 06:01 AM
  5. I have decided to un-ban everyone!
    By JPennington in forum Club News and Updates
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-05-2005, 09:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Articles - Sitemap - FAQs and Rules

KB Footer Graphic
Straight from Japan... For the serious hobbyist!
All content and images copyright of: Koi-bito.com