RD.

I'm more than willing to have civilized & intelligent conversations on subjects such as this one, with those that are willing to do the same. I'm not crying about anything, obviously, no need to be a jackass. I'm simply not jumping for joy because the CFIA is now going to implement a system that IMO is going to achieve almost next to nothing with regards to the tropical fish industry. I don't care who said what to whom about whatever, I'm commenting on areas of these new regulations that I personally see as being extremely weak with regards to preventing the introduction of aquatic animal diseases into Canada. If you, your pals at PIJAC, or even the largest fish wholesaler in the free world disagree, that's fine by me.

No kidding. Obviously a vet needs to sign off on the health cert, I've only mentioned that several times in this discussion. And so exactly how is that going to stop Tom, Dick, and Harry from importing discus, etc, or as you suggest, help eliminate the underground fish trade into Canada? It's not going to eliminate anything. No one is interested in importing low grade discus into Canada from basement hobby breeders, the vast majority of people seek out high end breeders that sell quality fish that will have no problem supplying health certs as long as one is willing to pay for them. Same for wild discus imported from SA. All that's required is a DVM that is willing to sign off on a piece of paper. Now if we were discussing fish food, and the CFIA, that would be a whole different ball game. As the importer is dealing directly with the CFIA, and CFIA certified DVM's on this side of the border. In that case it has most definitely but a major dent in the importation of ALL pet food into Canada. In that case one must work directly with the CFIA, and directly with the manufacturer of the product themselves, and not just an exporter with a piece of paper. Hikari Sales USA found that out the hard way. Compared to bringing fish food into Canada, importing fish will be a cake walk. .

Just in case you missed it the first time around. The exporter simply has to ship the fish with a health cert, no biggie in the grand scheme of things. It's just going to cost more now. fish + shipping + health cert + tax.

Scott - what will happen in those cases is the fish will have a handful of meds thrown at them until they have a clean bill of health, or they will be shipped to countries where health certificates are not required. Same as what currently takes place with 99% of the tropical fish currently being exported from various countries. The reality is none of this is going to stop Tom, Dick, Harry, or anyone else from importing fish from wherever & whomever they like. It will have zero effect on the so called underground fish trade. As long as a health certificate is supplied for those species that require one, those fish will come into Canada just as easily as any other shipment of fish. As always, money talks, and BS walks. The CFIA has clearly targeted species of aquartic animals that are associated with very specific disease/s. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/disliste.shtml Having said that, I have absolutely no idea why discus have been singled out, or what specific disease they are being associated with that a thousand other tropical species can & often do carry?

You can purchase all the frozen fish food that you need down at your local Asian market. Pre-soak in Boyd Vitachem 3-4 times a week, and you're good to go.

FYI - I grew up in an area of Canada where feral carp/koi were running rampant before most members of this forum were even alive. The only reason that all of the various carp species, koi, and goldfish, are now on the CFIA's radar is due to the fairly recent (confirmed in ON in 2007) outbreak of KHV (koi herpes virus). http://en.engormix.com/MA-aquaculture/news/mysterious-herpes-killing-carp-t13062/p0.htm http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LetsFish/2ColumnSubPage/272813.html Non native carp have been swimming in Canadian waters for the past 50+ years, with the most recent capture from just this year, being a Bighead (Asian) carp in the Great Lakes. http://www.ec.gc.ca/eee-ias/default.asp?lang=En&n=8E8C2C22-1 In Canada, carp have been a direct threat to native fish for several decades. I'm also well aware of the amount of pathogen infected fish that are imported & sold in the aquatic trade. You're not telling me anything that I'm not already well aware of, and have seen first hand for many years. As stated repeatedly, I am not against the regulation of animals & animal products being imported into Canada. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. My issue is not with proper regulations, but specifically with the government agency that is now overseeing this process. If you believe that the new CFIA regulations are going to cause any major reductions in the introduction of diseased fish into the aquatic industry, then you have far greater confidence in the CFIA than I do. I take it from your lack of response to my previous question your personal dealings with the CFIA are non existent. I wish that I could say the same. Cheers

Actually that's not at all true. The way the proposal from the CFIA currently stands the vast majority of the tropical fish imported into Canada won't require any form of health certificate. http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/spliste.shtml The vast majority of the species listed in that link are fish destined for human consumption, not for the aquarium trade. IMO there is a clear conflict of interest between protecting human health (the CFIA's typical role), and truly protecting Canada from the introduction of aquatic animal disease with regards to the aquarium trade. As it currently stands, the latter seems to be of little interest to the CFIA. Hopefully it stays that way.

Will, Have you ever had to deal with the CFIA directly? I have, many times, and for the most part it's typically been a huge cluster***k. And while I agree that these types of regulations take time to iron out potential problems, the CFIA has been working in the background on these new proposals since 2005. Again, I am not against the regulation of animals & animal products being imported into Canada, I'm actually all for it. But I am against sloppy regulation, which is exactly what this currently appears to be. It shouldn't take 5 days to figure out some of these potential problems, let alone 5 years. I used the crayfish situation as an a example of how ludicrous some of this is. The CFIA is actually not worried about the crayfish plague (A. astaci), their concern is that there may be a potential of a EU strain of A. astacei being imported via infected crays which our NA species may be susceptible to.(how ironic is that?) If that's the case, then ALL crayfish being imported into Canada from facilities where EU crays are kept, or have been in the past, should be considered potential carriers of this potential EU strain, not just the species they have chosen for their special little list. And of course all of that will depend on the the vet who checks all of these crays, and whether they follow the proper protocol required, beyond just gross oberservation, such as wet mounts, smears, cultures, etc. And then of course we have exporters/importers who apparetly don't know the difference between the species, and have Cherax Tenuimanus listed(which is not on the CFIA list), when they are actually Cherax quadricarinatus. (which are on the CFIA list) These aren't make believe scenarios, this is exactly what is already taking place within the trade, and within our country. It's a bad thing, because both importers & consumers are being given what will turn out to be a false sense of security. These fish, crustaceans, etc are not going to be arriving from biosecure facilities, most are coming from intensive commercial facilities, where numerous pathogens can be present at any given time. Performing a random test on 1, 2, or even a handful of specimens, out of 10's of thousands per facility does not & will not remove the potential for many infected specimens to arrive on our soil. As stated previously, without proper quarantine, and proper testing at this end, in many cases those certs won't amount to more than a bucket of warm spit. With regards to wolves, and potential increased costs of tropical fish, tell that to the hobbyists in Australia, where their govt has perfected (in their minds) the biosecure import system. http://www.daff.gov.au/aqis/import/general-info/qap/class7 More fun reading .... http://www.daff.gov.au/ba/ira/current-animal/ornamental_finfish If you think that red tape is very important, all I can say to that is be careful what you wish for. It just might come true .....

That's like asking why a condom with a large gaping hole in it, is a problem? BTW - In North America most indigenous crayfish species are resistant to this disease, but can be asymptomatic carriers.

ditto My interest is for the hobby as a whole, not just how this may or may not affect me personally.

Of course they don't have a problem with the current proposal, why would they? The vast majority of tropical species they deal in aren't on that list, and even for those that are, the extra cost for health certificates will simply be passed on to their customers, which in turn will eventually be passed on to consumers. I am not against the regulation of animals & animal products being imported into Canada, I'm actually all for it. But I am against sloppy regulation, which is exactly what this appears to be. This is a very slippery slope that realistically is going to achieve very little with regards to preventing the introduction of aquatic animal diseases into Canada, and eventually could see some (many?) species being outright banned from import. As previously mentioned, health certificates from foreign countries are only going to be as good as those individuals performing the tests, and supplying the certification. Let me put this into perspective for you. Using a country such as Thailand for example, in order to import tropical fish food into Canada, a team of CFIA agents is required to travel to Thailand, and perform a risk assessment of the facilities. If everything checks out & the facility is given a green light, only then can that food be considered for import into Canada. And the entire cost of that risk assessment falls on the manufacturer and/or the importer. To import "live" tropical fish from Thailand, for those species on the list the CFIA will require nothing more than a signature from a vet. I'd love for someone to explain to me how that is somehow going to be a good thing for this hobby? I hardly get a warm & fuzzy feeling about a government agency that is somehow going to protect my country from all known aquatic animal diseases, yet fails to grasp even the most basic fundamentals about something as simplistic as crayfish, and "crayfish plague". What the president of the CAOAC stated in his letter on that subject was spot on, the CFIA obviously doesn't have a clue what they are doing. Crayfish species that typically do not carry or transmit Aphanomyces astaci (crayfish plague) are now going to require health certificates to prevent the spread of this disease, yet many of the North American species, such as P. alleni, can be imported sans any type of health check or certification. WTF? Why not just simplify things such as some US states, and simply ban the sale &/or ownership of all crayfish species. And this is the government body that is somehow going to protect this country from the introduction of aquatic animal diseases? IMO this is nothing more than a bunch of bureaucratic red tape that has been put into play due to political pressure. It has not been clearly thought out, and the only effect I see on the industry as a whole is a rise in the cost of any & all species that require health permits in the future, and eventually a total ban on some. Revisit this discussion in 10 years, and we'll see how "good" this has been for the hobby.

Such as members of PIJAC? You're only kidding yourself if you think that PIJAC has had any type of serious influence on what the CFIA does, or will do in the future. Last years new pet food import regulations is a prime example of how much influence anyone with an ounce of brains has had with the CFIA. That too all initially sounded good, but IMO & IME it's a classic case of what looks good on paper, doesn't always play out so well in actual practice.

Here's the direct link to Bob's letter. http://www.caoac.ca/forms/CAOACCFIALETTER.pdf

While Bob raised some good questions, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for him to get any type of response from the CFIA. The CFIA has clearly placed the burden of proof on the exporting countries, and those pieces of paper are only going to be as good as the governing bodies who perform the tests, and supply the papers. I don't imagine that out of a batch of 500 juvenile discus being exported from Bangkok, all of them will have been swabbed & thoroughly examined for every known "disease of concern" to Canada. I suspect this will involve nothing more than random testing, which without proper quarantine, and testing at this end, in many cases won't amount to more than a bucket of warm spit. I see this being about as effective as the CFIA's regulations on pet food importation. A LOT of paperwork, and fees, for nothing. The entire process has more holes than a slab of swiss cheese.

As it currently stands, I don't see this being a huge benefit to anyone. When I first viewed the species list I honestly missed most of the tropical fish currently listed, such as "discus fish", as I was focussing on the crustacean list. Most of the finfish listed appear to be fish destined for human consumption, not for the aquarium trade. I only went back to take a closer look after Don Gross sent me the link last night & mentioned discus. Why discus, and not angel fish? Both species carry the exact same pathogens. Or in the crustacean list why Procambarus clarkii, but not Procambarus alleni? Cherax quadricarinatus & Cherax destrcutor are both on the list, but none of this matters much if the people exporting and/or importing are using the wrong latin names to describe the species. As an example, Petsmart typically sells "Electric Blue Lobster" as Cherax Tenuimanus, which is incorrect, those crays are actually Cherax quadricarinatus. Make sense? I can only imagine that the koi herpes virus triggered the start of this recent change, but I personally don't see how such a hit & miss list of species is going to result in protecting consumers, or Canada's waters from any type of pathogen outbreak.

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the beginning of a long list to come. So far it seems to be very limited as far as tropical fish go, but discus have already made the list, as have a few other select species.

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/impe.shtml

In Asia the average sized FH breeding set up is probably 40 gallon (or less), so with smaller fish I wouldn't let that discourage you. As an example, check this out. http://www.youtube.com/user/walter885#p/u/16/bIV_SrkMBGw Certainly a larger tank would be better, but you won't find many breeders in Vietnam or Bangkok using large tanks to breed FH. If you plan on having a more permanent divider, IMO acrylic or glass is a cleaner option, and there's zero chance of the fish scraping themselves up. Your biggest challenge will come with raising out all of the fry to a decent size, culling the duds, and keeping the handful of fish that show good potential. Having successful spawns isn't nearly as difficult or labour intensive as the raising of the offspring.

I would highly recommend contacting RDFISHGUY on this forum before dealing with this store for an acrylic tank.

IMO, in some cases it's already too big. I don't personally find a massive alien head looking kok, appealing, anymore than I would on a CA cichlid.

I would recommend reading the following discussion, specifically the comments on page 2 by betta bob. http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=132336 Getting high quality "red" texas, that fully peel into deep red colored fish with nice pearling is not as easy as it seems. I've seen a LOT of fish online lately being sold as RT's that for the most part just look like carpintis with a hint of red overtones to them. Send me a PM when your fry get bigger, I'd be interested in seeing what they look like.

No problem. BTW - this is probably going to be a total buzz kill for your man crush on Heiko Bleher, but apparently this is all his fault. http://www.perthcichlid.com.au/forum/index.php?showtopic=27801&st=20 It doesn't appear that Heiko has kept up with the flowerhorn craze (genetics wise), but personally I think that it's rather funny that Heiko would even associate his fish purist name with a filthy hybrid mutant such as a FH.

Will, I think that you forget that FH aren't just raised & bred in Asia. I believe what common sense dictates, and more importantly what I have seen with my own two eyes, and touched with my own two hands. I'm well ware of what can & does take place by breeders in Asia. (and elsewhere) BTW - I never said that some koks are just fluid, what I said was some are mostly made up of fluid. I've never sliced one open, so I honestly couldn't tell you exactly how much of a water kok is actually comprised of fluid. The comment below is pretty much spot on, and perhaps explains things better. If you go back to the link of the S. casuarius, that is a prime example of how some fish can obtain much larger nuchal humps, than numerous other male fish within the same species. That particular male fish is what most FH keepers would consider a "water kokster". If one took a male such as shown on that website, and was lucky enough to find a female with a somewhat enlarged nuchal hump, and used those two fish to line breed numerous generations, over several years, one could easily develop a "king kong" Buffalo Hump Head strain. Obviously the money isn't there for such an effort, or it would have already been done. With FH fish, the money is there, with "masterpiece" examples commonly fetching 1K or more per fish. So yes, with FH the effort is indeed worth it, even if it takes a hundred or so fish to find that single gem in the making. You also have to understand that FH can vary greatly, as various fish are used in the genetic make up in the various different strains. A strain that uses King Kong Parrot, or Red Mommon, can vary greatly from one that is based on old school ZZ. (Zhen Zhou) If you follow the evolution of the FH, it becomes rather clear that a lot of selective breeding has taken place over the past decade. Most of the old school FH's had fairly small (hard) koks, today most of the breeders strive for very large koks as this is what there is a strong demand for. Just using common logic, if what your "source" stated was true, every breeder across Asia would be using such a method (injections) to get massive koks in all of their FH, and that simply isn't the case. There are a ton of low grade/low cost FH's on the market, that sell for $10-20. Today the market demand is for short mouths, strong wrap tails, strong color and/or pearling, and last but not least large koks. Quite frankly if one is going to be overly concerned about anything unscrupulous regarding cichlid fish from Asia, it should be the use of hormones to enhance color in a fish. This is a common practice and something that is done very openly among many breeders in Asia. But even that wears off over time, so it's not like anyone is being fooled, at least not for very long.

I thought that we cleared this up already, no? Large koks are not a specific trait that the vast majority of people breeding CA, SA, or African cichlids strive for. With FH's, large koks are one of the #1 traits that all FH breeders strive for, to the point that even females can be found with impressive koks. So if you line breed hard enough, and for long enough, once in a while you will end up with a m/f pair that throw a decent percentage of offspring with massive koks. And due to their scarcity these fish typically sell for big bucks. The little juvie Thai Silk that I am currently growing out already has 2-3 times the size of nuchal hump that one would ever see on any CA/SA species of fish at this size. Again, this fish has been in my care (sans injections) since it was a skinny little fingerling. A Kamfa FH juvie that I have (from the same breeder in Thailand), which is several times larger in total body mass, has a smaller less defined kok than the little Thai Silk. It may come in time as Kamfa are known to be late bloomers, or it may never have much as far as kok goes. I bought the Kamfa for his pearling & color, so whether he grows a massive kok or not I really don't care. If this fish was sitting in a tank at a LFS in Calgary, it would already be in the $400-500 range. Another rumour about FH's is that Asian breeders inject the male FH with something that causes them to become infertile. Lots of hobbyists still believe this, even though the "story" is totally bogus. Yes, many males are infertile due to their genetic make up, while many others are more than capable of fertilizing eggs. There are plenty of FH's out there that have been locally bred & raised, with nuchal humps the size of small baseballs. The same goes for other popular hybrids, such as red texas. Some males can produce, some just shoot blanks. HTH

Here's an example of what I just described. http://www.flowerhornsfrombeyond.com/store.html?page=shop.product_details&flypage=flypage_images.tpl&product_id=219&category_id=1 If you click on the photo of the red dragon fry, you can clearly see that none of those 1.5" fish are showing any type of kok. If one was to buy them all, probably only a few of them (if any?) will grow out looking like champs. And this is exactly why this transhipper is only selling them for $5. These are probably some of her own fry, produced by her own breeding pairs. If she was to grow them all out herself, and if by 3-4" any looked like they had great potential, the cost would rise based on the potential quality of the fish. FH are graded on a number of factors, not just kok potential. Color, pearling, tail shape & form, overall body shape & length, as well as kok. So buying a small juvie is really a crap shoot, even if you know what to look for, hence the much lower price. HTH