THE INDUSTRY BEHIND THE HOBBY.

[David R]

Did you read the first post? :roll:

[alanmin4304]

I did read it. Since fish can and are now tested and the costs recovered I am asking what are the proposed changes. I assume you know the difference between PROPOSED and EXISTING.

[livingart]

We need to support those in the industry who support the hobby, rather than those who offer the cheapest junk at the lowest price. Penny pinching in such a small market as NZ will ultimately lead to the death of the hobby...

have heard that said a few times over the last 35+ years and the hobby is still here

1 importer still there and a couple of retailers still going, others have come and gone

maybe the recession has put more stress on viability and maf adding more

the fnzas has more people on board to help move it in a new direction and is making moves now to help the hobby more

[henward]

yeah, for one, selling really cruddy discus on TM - msot of whcih are deformed, lying about age and stuntedness.

Buying from retailers - i know im getting something good 99% of thwe time.

they wotn lie to me, as least i dont find they do.

If we buy from local breeders who breed and sell at a premium and keep the fisht o themselves, this is whats harmful.

With no lfs, there are no importers

only lfs around the country buy in such bulk to warrant importation.

from a business poitn of view. Costs of compliance, time in quarantine all equal money.

water, salt, power, tank space... slowly moving stock, would mean less can be pushed through the market.

The future of this market is not from Breeding fish IMO, it is from more importation, to replenish our deminishing bloodlines - which i have seen in deformed and easily stricken fish. Importation also adds variety.

How do we do this?

Applying for IHS for new species.

Simple right? NO

because IMO (correct me if i am wrong) but this is my IMO from analysing the business side of importation as in one stage i secured the exclusive rights to import discus from a reputable singaporean discus breeder, after seeing costs to set up and compliance, it was too much for me.

The reason why applications to IHS is slow i think is because once you have teh IHS, this is not an exlcusive license. You do the hard work, and everyone gets a free ride.

Say, we can bring in freshwater rays - someone has the IHS for that, every importer can also. Just like asian arowana, now its legal to be imported, everyone can do it. Weather it is justifiable to do so is another question, some can and specialise on it like KING, but others dont because they cant move it properly and fast enough.

So the probelm here is that importers probably say

"why would i spend money to do it, and everyone gets a free ride"

But really perhaps we should be looking at collectively pitching in applying for new species.

but once again, importers may say... if i do that, they i have more competition - perhaps once you get the IHS, you can bring in a shipment before anyone else and make money on that, capitalise before the other importers realise its ok to bring that in.

our market is so small - that is the issue.

Another idea is to have soemone like this forum, get together and make applications.

Isnt that the purpose of this forum (i dont know if this is happening already)

If someone here said, pitch in money to apply for species, and you can apply for more than one species at a time with one application fee.

then i would be more than happyt o contribute IF its being spent right.

Hell, if it would mean we can get rays here, or armatus, or african arowana, or dovii cichlids, or other cool stuff - why not?

i spend thousands now buying fish i like but not really love because i have nothign else to keep and grow!

why wouldnt i invest in something like that.

how many membersdo we have.

an application for IHS is only i think $400 ish.

woudlnt take much to get it approved, then we can get hff to push for importation when we have the IHS perhaps.

just an idea.

theindustry behind the hobby needs the most support.

i will pay more for a fish from a shop like hff than buy it on TM if i can help it. Because with out them, there is no hobby.

fish food too... i would buy there even if its slightly more. its only a few bux and you get to have some interesting convos too!

sure, i will still try to get some discount, but thats probably in my genes as im asian:)

but you know, supporting the importers, retailers is key.

anyone keen on doing the research and putting together an application?

Ill put in the first $20 towards it..

Who is with me?? 8)

[henward]

as for changes to the rules.

there will always be changes to the rules

part probably is maf wants to justify their existence more, thought ehy are usefull. changing small things on such a small hobby is really useless, but they still do it - beaurocracy.

is there a lobby group out there?

can we lobby maf?

maybe lobby an mp?

[livingart]

anyone keen on doing the research and putting together an application?

Ill put in the first $20 towards it..

Who is with me??

i think a few have already started

[alanmin4304]

New IHS is another post. This post is about the industry behind the hobby. That includes importing, breeding, wholesaling and retailing. No one has yet pointed out to me what the proposed changes to the importing and quarantine regime are and what the added costs might be. Just because a proposed standard is put up does not mean that it is all new and added costs

So is any one prepared to tell me what the propsed additional regime is and what the likely added costs might be?

In the mean time

I remain

yours sincerely

Igrant.

[henward]

i think a few have already started

havent heard much though, maybe they can be more vocal about it.

ill pitch in if they put in some species i want to bring in lol

Simple ones too, endli bichirs and more bichirs species for example.

[livingart]

havent heard much though, maybe they can be more vocal about it.

ill pitch in if they put in some species i want to bring in lol

Simple ones too, endli bichirs and more bichirs species for example.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=49105

[Luke*]

alan i believe the costs have been talked about to some degree.. with potentially up to half frozen for 'sampling'.. what the hell?! sounds like a concentration camp. not sure what the current stat is on it though.

henward.. lol you want wolf (aka dovii) cichlid in nz??????? hahaha the ruling most aggressive cichlid of all.. i'm sure maf would love that one (imagine them thinking of a 75cm one in the nz wild.. which of course they seem to think is all rather feasible? lol)

[Luke*]

Especially if you get a over jealous MAF officer.

think you meant zealous?

[henward]

i am unsure, but i dont think dovii will survive and thrive in nz waters...?

[alanmin4304]

I am interested in what is proposed that is more stringent than the present requirements but no one seems to want to tell me. Saying it will cost more is not the answer.

[livingart]

maybe something in this Risk Management Proposal is of concern to otthers

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/bi ... 1-2010.pdf

Risk Management Proposal for the importation of ornamental fish and

marine invertebrates

The purpose of this document is to provide a summary of the decision processes that led to the

Draft Import Health Standard for Ornamental Fish and Marine Invertebrates from All

Countries.

Background

Live ornamental aquatic animal imports represent a known pathway for the introduction of

both exotic pathogens and invasive pest species. To afford some level of control over this

pathway an import health standard (IHS) was introduced for the importation into New

Zealand of ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from all countries. The IHS included a

list of, mainly, genera of fish and marine invertebrates permitted to be imported.

In November 2005 MAF released a risk analysis on the eligible genera list from the import

health standard for the importation of ornamental freshwater and marine animals. The risk

analysis presented a number of measures to manage the risks posed by the 13 hazards

identified.

Meanwhile, the list of eligible fish species was reviewed under the Hazardous Substances and

New Organisms (HSNO) Act, to include only those species present in New Zealand before 1

July 1998. The amended eligible list was finalised in March 2007. Consultation on MAF’s

2005 risk analysis revealed that a number of genera of animals had not been included on the

agreed list, and as a result, it became necessary to conduct a supplementary risk analysis on a

further 158 genera of aquatic animals. Following these risk assessments on the additional

genera of fish, a further six organisms were classified as actual hazards in the commodities as

well as the 13 already described in the 2005 risk analysis.

Risk assessment considerations

The majority of the fish species (approximately 1300 species) were classified as ‘low risk’ –

they are not susceptible to the 19 identified hazards. The low-risk fish species not already

present were added to the existing import health standard as an amendment in December

2009. These fish are subject to a post-arrival quarantine period, and biosecurity clearance is

issued to all surviving fish free of clinical signs of pests and disease at the end of the

quarantine period.

The remaining fish species were classified as ‘high-risk’ species – they are susceptible to one

or more of the 19 identified hazards. Some of these high-risk species are on the existing IHS,

and this revision proposes to add another nine species. More stringent risk management

conditions are justified before these species are given biosecurity clearance.

Risk management options have been developed for the 19 identified risk organisms. The

proposed IHS will identify the high-risk fish species and the risk hazards to which they are

susceptible, which will allow any required disease investigation to be conducted in a targeted

manner.

It is recognised that the importation of live aquatic animals may also carry biosecurity risks

from pathogens that are as yet unknown. A quarantine period, as well as being an important

risk mitigating measure for the identified hazards, offers some protection against any potential

unidentified risks, as during the time of high stress following transportation it is likely that

MAF Biosecurity New Zealand Risk Management Proposal: Ornamental Fish and Marine Invertebrates  2

subclinical disease harboured by the fish will become clinically apparent. It is logical to base

the length of quarantine on the epidemiology and pathogenesis of the 19 identified risk

organisms. On this basis, a quarantine period of four weeks will be required for freshwater

fish, and three weeks will be required for marine fish and marine invertebrates.

Summary of risk mitigation measures

1. Ornamental fish and marine invertebrates from the permitted list must remain in

quarantine for not less than four weeks in the case of freshwater fish, and not less than

three weeks in the case of marine fish and marine invertebrates.

2. Permitted ‘high-risk’ fish and marine invertebrate species (susceptible to one or more

of the identified 19 risk organisms) must undergo risk management measures in

addition to the above quarantine periods. The risk management options for the 19

hazards are given in the IHS.

3. The supervisor may investigate batches of high-risk or low-risk fish for pathogens of

biosecurity significance to New Zealand if deemed appropriate from clinical signs of

illness or death of fish.

4. If an exotic disease or pathogenic disease agent is found, the Chief Technical Officer

may direct any or all of the fish to be detained in quarantine for further testing, or

order their destruction.

[alanmin4304]

Thanks for that LA. It would seem to me that the proposal is to reduce the Q period for most fresh water fish to 4 weeks, to leave marines at 3 weeks and to target the testing regime for diseases known to be a risk to that species. This seems to be in most cases to be less arduous than the present regime so could some one explain what the problem is?

Sorry to be so thick and hung up in the past but I am sure people would be interested in why the prices will rise when Q is proposed to be for the same or a shorter period and testing more targeted.

[livingart]

this article makes for a very good read

it is the Import risk analysis: Tropical, subtropical and temperate freshwater and marine ornamental fish and marine molluscs and crustaceans

REVIEW OF SUBMISSIONS ON SUPPLEMENTARY RISK ANALYIS

dated June 2010

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/files/bi ... un2010.pdf

from this it appears ma have taken submissions on board and are working with importers for the future of businesses whilst protecting our natives as well

[alanmin4304]

Thanks for that info LA. That would lead me to believe that Maf are actually trying to be reasonable and reduce the Q period for low risk fresh water fish while keeping the same period for marines. In addition they seem willing to target testing at the actual or potential risks rather than the more expensive present blanket testing aproach.

Since I have not had a reply to my question I think we should all look foreward to a lowering of costs of imported fish rather than a rise.

I remain

Yours sincerly

Sirry irriot.

[Kerryn]

Found this topic very interesting.

At the risk of repeating what alanmin4304 has already said, it seems that the new proposals will reduce costs with regards to many species:

Summary: New MAF Biosecurity NZ Import Health Standard For Ornamental Fish And Marine Invertebrates From All Countries: Draft 15-11-2010

• Quarantine period reduced from 6 weeks to 4 weeks for freshwater ornamental fish

should reduce costs

• Most of the additional pre-quarantine or quarantine measures for the newly defined ‘high risk’ freshwater ornamental species = testing of batches displaying signs of disease - which I presume has to be done under the current regulations anyway? No signs of disease = no testing required. And as before, if the importer can provide evidence as to an environmental cause for the health problems, diagnostic tests should not be required. Furthermore, if signs of disease are present, then specific tests for particular diseases based on specific symptoms will be carried out, rather than a full range of tests. To quote the draft: ‘Diagnostic efforts will be targeted appropriately, which will result in faster and more cost-efficient quarantine than the blanket enforcement of a broad range of compulsory diagnostic tests in the event of 20% mortality in any species’.

• Species which are negatively affected (i.e testing/treatment must be carried out whether or not there are signs of disease):

Livebearers

Poecilia latipinna (sailfin molly) - batch or source population testing for iridoviruses

Guppies, sailfin mollys, swordtails, platys - worming with praziquantel

Characids

Astyanax fasciatus (banded astyanax) & mexicanus (Mexican tetra/blind cave tetra) - worming with praziquantel

Cichlids

Apistogramma borellii, commbrae & pleurotaenia - batch or source population testing for iridoviruses

Herichthys cyanoguttatus (Texas cichlid) - worming with praziquantel

Cyprinids

Capoeta semifasciolatus (= Puntius semifasciolatus - would be good if MAF could get this one right; chinese/gold barb)

- batch or source population testing for viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV)

- worming with praziquantel

Puntius conchonius (rosy barb), denisonii (red line torpedo barb), gelius (golden dwarf barb) & ticto (ticto barb)

- batch or source population testing for viral haemorrhagic septicaemia virus (VHSV)

- worming with praziquantel

- nematode treatment using levamisole bath

Carassius auratus (goldfish)

- batch or source population testing for aquabirnaviruses, iridoviruses & Aeromonas salmonicida

- verifiable certification of continuous separation from Cyprinus carpio (common carp) species or batch or source population

testing for both cyprinid herpesvirus-3 (koi herpesvirus) & spring viraemia of carp virus

- worming with praziquantel

What is not specified in the draft is how many fish will need to be tested for a particular species if batch testing is required & obviously this will affect cost.

HTH,

Kerryn

[the-obstacle]

Thanks kerryn, that's made the actual impacts a whole lot clearer. It seems a fairly 'easy' process to go through (but costly I bet) as long as the infrastructure is in place to quarantine and medicate / manage the imports.

[Kerryn]

Thanks the-obstacle.

I'm neither an importer nor an expert though & would love some feedback from others as to whether this summary is accurate or if I have completely missed the boat!

[livingart]

i think you are on board the boat

perhaps the best one to reply to you is the one who started the thread

as they are at the frontline dealing with maf and as an importer will know exactly how the charges affect their business and close down our hobby

On another Matter the draft of the new standard is out for submissions,

I would encourage people to take part, we need 100s of submissions.

http://www.biosecurity.govt.nz/biosec/consult/draft-ihs-fisornic.all-15-11-2010

Basically MAF is trying to close down the hobby, they are subjecting importers with lots on increased cost.

As per the allowable list you will see that some fish have to be tested, if many die, it can cost thousands , so expect prices to go up by over 10%.

So far some MAF cost have increased by 100%, really great in a recession.

Should have a new forum to discuss this.

The hobby has not caused any major problems compared to Ships that release ballast water when they enter NZ.

Due to the industry being small MAF can take advantage of it and add many conditions when fish are imported. overseas they are also having changes however NZ has the one of the longest quarantine period already in the world which add additional dollars to the Hobby.

Its time to take action.

[alanmin4304]

Time will tell in the end. These are the guidelines for the process and it will depend a lot on how these guidelines are enforced. There are certain requirements after certain percentages of fatalities occur but there are also discretions and it is how these are operated that will determine the real outcome. There are approved fish which are not imported at the moment because they are "too riskey" and for other reasons as well. When this process settles in it may be that the types of fish imported will change again.

[reef]

I'm neither an importer nor an expert though & would love some feedback from others as to whether this summary is accurate or if I have completely missed the boat!

Its accurate.

No doubt it seems MAF a hidden agent to make life difficult.,not mention the cost recovery agenda they seem to be on. They are charging for everything and at $100/hr it does not take long long to mount up. most importers pay MAF easy money of about $12-$15k a year.

Enforcement of regulations and more proposed regulation is no doubt going to increase prices.

Freshwater quarantine is reducing to 4 weeks , however there is no cost savings and likely more additional reporting.

Time will tell us that pricing is going to go up, especially if they try to make the changers they have put forward.

• Quarantine period reduced from 6 weeks to 4 weeks for freshwater ornamental fish

should reduce costs

Can't see how, still three visits in 4 weeks.

[reef]

no one seems prepared to answer my perfectly reasonable question about "what are the proposed added costs" I will just have to remain igrant

once importers have had a chance to review the changes, these will be addressed with MAF.

Changes proposed will increase pricing and make it uneconomical to import some species and have a major effect on marines.

[reef]

Interesting thing happening in australia to restrict fish, same thing is happening in NZ to some degree as MAF is on a war path to test anything they can. costing hundreds.

Fish can be held up for weeks waiting for results.

Problems is that many of the cichlids can come with Iridovirus, , as mention below , fish have been imported also in NZ for 30 year plus with no outbreak, so it is really stupid to take the road they are currently taking to kill large batches of fish.

This circular is being sent to you all as a matter of some urgency for the continuance of your business, hobby and its income. Over the past 3 to 4 years various Government agencies and committees are attempting to restrict the amount and huge numbers of ornamental fishes that you are currently allowed to keep, sell and trade in your Hobby/Business, for invalidated scientific reasons. These groups are as follows:

OFMIG (Ornamental Fish Management Implementation Group)

TWG (Technical Working Group that is connected to OFMIG)

AQIS (Australian Quarantine Inspection Service)

Bio-security Australia.

OFMIG have been working towards declaring huge numbers of ornamental fish species as NOXIOUS, which means they will NOT be allowed to be kept, bred or sold Australia wide. Currently, the species that have been listed onto the National NOXIOUS List, does not affect anybody, as 99% of them are not in Australia. However, OFMIG is in the process of determining an “Options Paper” that will in effect declare NOXIOUS numerous species that we have dealt with for the past 100 years, without any concerns whatsoever on how this will affect your business/hobby and the income derived from it. This is a very grave situation that needs to be taken very seriously by all Retailers/Hobbyist and Individual personnel, as it will soon see dramatic reductions in the species we all keep, breed, and sell Australia wide, if it should come to pass.

The TWG are a group of scientific individuals that have developed a risk assessment for a huge number of ornamental fish species that have been traded, bred and kept Australia wide for the past 100 years. The TWG has Industry/Hobby representation on it, but these one or two representatives are having considerable difficulty in persuading the TWG scientists that to totally ban our ornamental species without any scientifically proven data, that would hold up to close scrutiny, is the wrong way to proceed, as it will see many hundreds of species being “dumped” into the environment, as retailers will not be permitted to trade in them, and nor will any hobbyists be allowed to keep, breed and sell them, once they are declared NOXIOUS.

Currently, Bio-Security Australia are attempting to further reduce your financial capacity to earn an income by proposing to batch-test species being imported in all Cichlids, All Livebearers, All Gouramis, Betta spp, and Paradise fish (which represents above 65% of all imports) on the mis-guided belief that these species are bringing in exotic diseases not known to be in Australia. There is no mention that we have been importing these species for over 100 years, and no outbreaks of disease have occurred in that time, plus there are no facilities in the Eastern States (where 90-95% of all imports arrive) to be able to detect these diseases through a recognized facility.

AQIS has advised Bio-Security that this process cannot be done in Australia, as they do not have the personnel nor the facilities at all ports of entry to be able to carry out specific Bio-Security requests with these imported species. The batch testing request to Industry will not stop at the groups of species mentioned, as all other imported species will be subjected to this same scrutiny in the not too distant future. If these batch testing are carried out on Australian soil it will substantially increase the overall costs of the species concerned by up to 400% making a Guppy variety worth around $20.00 each at retail. How many will we sell at this price?

If you want to still earn your current income both now and into the future, you will need to get involved in Industry/Hobby campaigns to various Groups and Ministers as those mentioned above, to try and prevent these very damaging pieces of legislation from coming into existence. The more people and businesses and hobby groups that become involved will go a long way to stopping these “very bad” pieces of legislation. So please, when you are contacted, get involved so that your income, turnover, and hobby is not restricted or eliminated. After all, evil is allowed to perpetuate whilst good people sit back and do nothing to prevent it. You will be contacted very soon to get involved in a campaign to OFMIG/TWG that are about to ban numerous ornamental species as NOXIOUS. So, please watch this space for future communications to you asking for your involvement that will be critical to preventing this situation from happening, and please, do your best to contact your local parliamentary members or by sending faxes, emails, and telephone calls to the people listed therein.

Yours Sincerely

Norm Halliwell on behalf of all the Industry/Hobby