Adrienne Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 A decision on whether or not to submit will be made shortly, however we will not be representing Commercial interests if we do submit, it will be on the hobbyists side of things i.e. the end result. I suggest that if any of those with Commercial interests have a problem with the MPI proposal they become proactive and make a submission themselves or, even better, form a representative group to send in a comprehensive, factual, and totally accurate submission to MPI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 commercial or hobbyist does not matter. Unsure why you are anti commercial traders especially when we are trying to help the end users. With no commercial imports you won't have a hobby and all fee increases can be passed on, so why should a commercial operator care. But some of us do care as we are hobbyist and do see that the end prices for the hobby is getting out of control, just look at overseas, our pricing is getting really high. This has got nothing to do with commercial interests at all, its about the hobby and how this will effect it going forward. And we wonder why the hobby is in the state it is when people don't work together. Hobbyist /commercial interest need to be united so things get done for the good of the hobby, i do concur that shops/importers also need to make submissions, but like many some just don't care, they just sit back and let the few do all the work. I think we need to get in the real world and take this seriously as the end users will be paying far more for fish and once the prices go up they never come down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 We are not anti commercial traders in fact it is the opposite for as you state without them there is no hobby, there has also been some excellent feedback to requests to businesses for their stance on MPI's proposals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Well reading this forum the tone hardly shows positively to commercial traders. seems to be a crime. I for one have shared more info than any importer would and also bought this to the attention of all. most would have been unaware of the MPI fee proposals. Also i think you have all the information on the forum. So in turn i would have thought most would have taken the time to understand the commutations and permutations on what price increases will do. has also been some excellent feedback to requests to businesses for their stance on MPI's proposals. Would it not be a good idea to share this?? makes sense so that everyone is on the same page and that the information is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Thank you for the information you have shared as this along with other info that has been shared with us will help us make a well informed decision. As these were private requests we are unable to share without the persons permission, sorry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjansss Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Why don't we ask Hollywood fish farm about what they think about this they are one of the best in the controy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 They have been already briefed on the mpi proposals. It has been left for them to make their own submission based on supplied facts from the main importers. This forum was set up so Hobbyist can make own submission based on true facts, its pointless to cover anything else other than what is on this forum as it will get lost in translation by MPI, so if we all come from the same angle , it will make the message clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjansss Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 I could guess that I'm saying knowing their opinion would be good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 As these were private requests we are unable to share without the persons permission, sorry seriously? no one is asking it to word for word. all the submissions made to mpi will be able to be viewed any way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanmin4304 Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 We have had confidential information provided to us by various fish importers to assist us in deciding wether to make a submission or not. That confidential information must remain confidential. If you (or others) choose to make information public that is your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 Why don't we ask Hollywood fish farm about what they think about this they are one of the best in the controy The Executive have contacted a number of importers/wholesalers and shops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 well then why are my figures incorrect as you have stated? is that confidential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted February 13, 2015 Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 It was never said your figures were incorrect, just that they are different Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2015 obviously they going to be different that was stated , however not by much you would think unless they are next to MPI. Its not like there are many importers, 8 in total. 4 freshwater and 4 marine. 4 large and 4 minor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 however not by much you would think unless they are next to MPI. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Given proposed mileage is based on hourly rate, being close to MPI will reduce mileage . instead of say 3 hr travel a month it might only be 30mins month, difference would be $500 in costings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 For those that are talking a interest in what is going on and take all my information/data as credible i would put a submission based on the following. 1/ Whilst vets are checking fish and is the choice of bio security to use vets it is not a necessity to use that expensive channel. As a Business this is not be cost effective and serves no value and adds additional cost to importers and end users. The tropical fish area is very specialized and Vets do not have the qualifications to inspect fish. Currently fish are checked for numbers/species and looses verified when in transitional facility .Much of the cost is paper work and checking and the hours required by vets can range from 5 to 8 hours a month, Any proposed fee increases will substantially increase the price of the fish. Vets can't make decisions and all decisions are referred to wellington before fish are released from Quarantine. So to get importers to pay a reasonable cost we propose that the fish transitional facilities are charged at the standard mpi proposed rate of $102/hr as the current practice to get fish checked by VETS is not cost effective and unnecessary. I also believe that overseas fish are not checked by VETS in general and they don't have onerous 3/4 week quarantine period which could be deemed cruel to fish as being crowded for so long can be very stressful. example how the Hr rate will increase fee, Fish checking fee so say currently is 8 hours a month. so 8 x $88, /hr = $704 plus gst, proposed will be 105% increase. so $1443 per month. will add more, but how does that sound. Please use your own words when making a submission than copying my summary, Also what i may do if i can is get my submission signed by hobbyist/stores to say that they agree with my submission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexyay Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Why don't we ask Hollywood fish farm about what they think about this they are one of the best in the controy I imagine they've been contacted but it's worth noting that they are not importers and may not be able to provide much about the current importer processes. Unsure why you are anti commercial traders especially when we are trying to help the end users. In defense of the FNZAS, I certainly have not found them anti-commercial. Those from the FNZAS frequently speak up for business when eg encountering slander and are always the first to remind hobbyists of the importance of businesses in the country. They also have the discount agreements for businesses with customers that are paid members of the FNZAS, which benefits both businesses and the FNZAS greatly. The relationship between MPI and FNZAS is important as both rely on each other and it's important to maintain the relationship with MPI for all of us. I imagine they will respond with good intentions towards the hobby and will do their best to help and prevent issues from developing due to price increases. FNZAS isn't going to do something that disadvantages hobbyists - we also both rely on each other. Out of curiosity, what evidence is there that vets will not be qualified to understand fish disease (sorry if I've missed it in the thread)? Is it based on past experience with vets? In regards to QT period - I'm surprised it's not longer. There are several diseases which may take ~1 month to show up. Personally I'm for an extended quarantine for both our wildlife and the fish currently in the hobby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 We could spend years debating the length of Quarantine, but i would start to look at the ships ballast water that gets dumped in our oceans, how is that quarantined. how are humans quarantined when they arrive in NZ?? Out of curiosity, what evidence is there that vets will not be qualified to understand fish disease (sorry if I've missed it in the thread)? Is it based on past experience with vets? evidence is i deal with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camtang Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 evidence is i deal with them. That is subjective evidence, I doubt it would hold up in court or a submission to MPI. I would advise you againsy adding something similar to your submission. On that note, how is it coming along? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexyay Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 We could spend years debating the length of Quarantine, but i would start to look at the ships ballast water that gets dumped in our oceans, how is that quarantined. how are humans quarantined when they arrive in NZ?? evidence is i deal with them. A ballast may only carry whatever its invertebrates can carry. It also depends on whether they make contact with certain other fish. Oceans are large and all connected bodies of water, in an aquarium it's a lot of pathogens in a concentrated space and a fish is more likely to contract a disease there (or in a small body of water) compared to an ocean. Humans do not carry columnaris or callamanus worms (for example). When issues such as ebola come to light, humans may be quarantined. You deal with the vets currently employed to check fish? I assume that means MPI does not propose to hire those with any kind of expertise in aquatic organisms in the future? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 what rubbish, what has that got to do with court? just because they are vets does not qualify them to be experts on fish. compared to a person that has fish for 20 years and has work experience with fish disease daily. On that note, how is it coming along? not sure it's confidential , how is your going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 I assume that means MPI does not propose to hire those with any kind of expertise in aquatic organisms in the future? MPI vets check fish, but that is not what they are qualified to do, they mainly check horses/ cats/dogs/sheep etc. fish is the least thing they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camtang Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 Can't say, it is confidential Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reef Posted February 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 A ballast may only carry whatever its invertebrates can carry. It also depends on whether they make contact with certain other fish. Oceans are large and all connected bodies of water, in an aquarium it's a lot of pathogens in a concentrated space and a fish is more likely to contract a disease there (or in a small body of water) compared to an ocean. put that in your submission to lengthen the quarantine. would really be helpful. Like i said we could debate this forever. fish imported also depend whether they make contact with certain other fish. the ocean is far away from most tanks. And to add in the perfect world quarantine would be longer , but it comes down to practicality and cost, i think most would cry if they had to pay $50 for guppy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts