New CFIA Aquatic Import Regulations

[RD.]

http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/aqua/impe.shtml Edited September 13, 2010 by RD.

[jvision]

I wonder if this will affect the aquarium trade much.

[RD.]

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.

[Evolution]

Cherax destructor

I had heard that this was coming and that PIJAC has played a roll in making it happen.

[fairdeal]

Neil you are awesome. Once again you have pulled through and informed everyone of potential pending changes in regulations that can affect our hobby. And some people wonder why I promote this site as the best I've ever been on.

I truly hope that people realize just how fortunate we are to have members like you keeping us up to speed on these types of changes before they actually happen and not having to find out after the fact.

[Evolution]

I wonder if this will affect the aquarium trade much.

This is a huge benefit to the aquarium industry in Canada, but it is being implemented to make it more and more difficult for non businesses to import fish into Canada.

[RD.]

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.

Edited September 9, 2010 by RD.

[fishclubgirl]

If you would like to see the Canadian Association of Aquarium Club's response to this, please go to their website www.caoac.ca and see Bob Wright's response. He raised some excellent questions and I would be curious to see the response. I like that he has offered to put the forms up on their website!!

Edited September 9, 2010 by fishclubgirl

[Evolution]

If you would like to see the Canadian Association of Aquarium Club's response to this, please go to their website www.caoac.ca and see Bob Wright's response. He raised some excellent questions and I would be curious to see the response. I like that he has offered to put the forms up on their website!!

Could you provide a link to that response as I can't find what you are talking about on that site.

[RD.]

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.

Edited September 13, 2010 by RD.

[RD.]

Here's the direct link to Bob's letter.

http://www.caoac.ca/forms/CAOACCFIALETTER.pdf

[Evolution]

I think this is a good thing for everyone and the future of our hobby. This is, so to speak, foundational building blocks to a structure that must be set in place. I will have information soon as I am friends with a few people that have been involved in the implentation of this regulation.

[RD.]

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.

[Evolution]

The regulation of ALL animals and animal products coming into this country is inevitable and a good thing. The 3 largest aquarium fish importers in Canada do not have a problem with this turn of events and I can't understand why anyone else would.

[RD.]

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.

Edited September 10, 2010 by RD.