New CFIA Aquatic Import Regulations

[RD.]

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?

[Evolution]

Come on, how are you or anyone else going to import a discus without a certificate of health, legally? The discus and all the other fish listed and will be listed in the future, that do not have health certificates will not becoming into Canada, atleast not legally.

[RD.]

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.

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.

[Evolution]

No, the exporter has to get a DMV to inspect the fish first and obtain a health certificate, then the exporter has to ship the fish with a health certificate. Which, you are right, is no big deal, but part of the process. Like i said before, it is not going to cost much more per fish when ordering significant quanties for resale or distribution amoungst other hobbiests. So it's about proper import procedures, not about money or BS.

[RD.]

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.

.

Edited September 11, 2010 by RD.

[Evolution]

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?

Honestly I don't know, underground fish trade was a direct quote used by Canada's largest fish wholesaler over a phone converation with me yesterday. He was in Ottawa last week as an invited speaker for this regulation thingy that they did, he mentioned it to me. He is the same guy that gave me the info about botox in the flower horns, which was passed to him buy some guy named Dennis, i don't know, I think he owns a store in Calgary, but clearly he hasn't been set straight by you pertaining importantion of tropical fish into Canada.

And as for Tom and Hairy and Dick, well I guess I don't know how it will stop them, and I'm sitting here wondering what this conversation is even about, because all i've heard is crying going on and on about how this is going to hurt our hobby, all because of a $100 added to a box of 250 snakeskin gouramis and 11 other fish.

Edited September 11, 2010 by Evolution

[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.

[werner]

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.

No, the exporter has to get a DMV to inspect the fish first and obtain a health certificate

Gasp! Would fish producers/exporters actually stoop to bribery to ensure their continued income??? Having a vet in the back pocket is probably a lot cheaper than actually treating the fish.

Interesting debate.

[RD.]

Oh no, I couldn't imagine that a country with this kind of track record in human health & safety, would resort to bribery & falsifying documents regarding the health & safety of their exported fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety_incidents_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

As stated previously, the CFIA has clearly placed the burden of proof on the exporting countries, and those health certs are only going to be as good as those who perform the tests, and supply the certificates.

[stratos]

Oh no, I couldn't imagine that a country with this kind of track record in human health & safety, would resort to bribery & falsifying documents regarding the health & safety of their exported fish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_safety_incidents_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

As stated previously, the CFIA has clearly placed the burden of proof on the exporting countries, and those health certs are only going to be as good as those who perform the tests, and supply the certificates.

There is corruption all over the world in the fish trade.

Edited September 12, 2010 by stratos

[RD.]

There is corruption all over the world in the fish trade.

Absolutely. And to answer your question before you edited your response ..... China was used as an example because in recent history it has one of the worst track records with regards to human health/safety issues, and is clearly at the top of the CFIA's hit list when it comes to human health/safety issues & concerns.

I simply find it ironic that the CFIA insists on first hand risk assessments being performed by their (CFIA's) own people of overseas fish food manufacturing facilities, but at the same time are going to allow these same countries to perform their own risk assessments of all live aquatic animals being exported to our country.

How in the hell that makes any sense to anyone is beyond me.

[stratos]

There is corruption all over the world in the fish trade.

Absolutely. And to answer your question before you edited your response ..... China was used as an example because in recent history it has one of the worst track records with regards to human health/safety issues, and is clearly at the top of the CFIA's hit list when it comes to human health/safety issues & concerns.

I simply find it ironic that the CFIA insists on first hand risk assessments being performed by their (CFIA's) own people of overseas fish food manufacturing facilities, but at the same time are going to allow these same countries to perform their own risk assessments of all live aquatic animals being exported to our country.

How in the hell that makes any sense to anyone is beyond me.

I wonder if lobbyists have had a hand behind the scenes in applying political pressure on CFIA to keep the tropical fish trade/pet trade running here? Or maybe the CFIA themselves realized they would kill the aquarium trade in Canada if they were too stringent in their oversite? There is a lot of money at stake.

Edited September 12, 2010 by stratos

[RD.]

According to the CFIA, their "top priority" is food safety. (human)

I seriously doubt that the tropical fish trade is at the top of any of their lists,

and realistically it isn't feasible for CFIA certified vets to check each & every

batch of fish imported into Canada. They simply don't have the manpower required.

IMO the new regulations are better than nothing, but not by much.

Personally I'd feel a lot better about it if the CFIA implemented some form of random batch checking. That alone would at least assist in keeping most exporters somewhat honest, or risk being banned from further imports into Canada. That would add a bit of bite to their regs, without being so stringent as to hinder trade.

[CursiveDuck]

And please do not mail your MP with such speculative petty issues, because they have more important things they need to focus on, like housing and feeding the hungry than worrying about the added 5 cents on every guppy imported into Canada.....

Evolution doesn't evolve the smartest, fastest or the strongest, it evolves the ones that can adapt to change.

I really like these two lines, because to me they seem counter productive when it comes to a political sense. If you can't mail your MP to tell him that the new regulations are not to the standard they should be, or have HUGE loop holes, how are they suppose to fix it? Rome may not have been built in a day, but I can sure as hell guarantee there was complaining. The quickest way to bring this program to a higher standard, would be to bring your issues to the people who "you put there" to fix it for you. That's what an MP is for, that's what a government is for, to run our country the way the general population seems fit. (Or at least the voters) I can agree fully with you that this regulation is a step in the right direction, and that it's going to need sometime, lots of time, before it can be up and running and working like it should. But I also agree with RD that in its current form, it needs a lot of work before it's going to be worth the paper its on, it has to many loop holes. And with such educated people like yourself and RD, I think writing a couple letters to the government to inform them of such loop holes, or problems would be a step in the right direction, and more productive to your cause.

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people."

[stratos]

IMO the new regulations are better than nothing, but not by much.

Personally I'd feel a lot better about it if the CFIA implemented some form of random batch checking. That alone would at least assist in keeping most exporters somewhat honest, or risk being banned from further imports into Canada. That would add a bit of bite to their regs, without being so stringent as to hinder trade.

The problem with random batch checks is that ornamental fish have too many entry points into the country for the system to work. It would require tanks/quarantine systems (not to mention CFIA staff with specialized knowledge/fish keeping skills) to be placed across Canada at every major airport and border crossing. Lots of liability issues, and too onerous I think.

I think what is needed is some kind of international body to oversee the global trade in all ornamental fish/pets; The CITES treaty is a good example of how something like this could be set up.