Drastic Action

Example of consequences of invasive fish.

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=6055

Hi

Don't know if it is just me but these links always take me to the recent articles page.

Which article are you referring to?

Thx
Dec

Q_Comets wrote:

Hi

Don't know if it is just me but these links always take me to the recent articles page.

Which article are you referring to?

Thx
Dec

I think it's the one about the Japanese Topmouth Gudgeon

People must work to protect our native habitats.

I have no problem in recommending to the Government that certain species need strict regulation and that licensing (either a General or Individual) for some species should be on the cards for the ROI and NI.

ian

Do you mean ian to restrict certain fish species through the trade importers.

paulv wrote:

Do you mean ian to restrict certain fish species through the trade importers.

Not just the aquatic trade, but any form of import or possession.

That may include culinary, medicinal, sport or other reason for certain fish (ie those of high hazard and high risk) needing regulation.
It doesn't start or stop with the pet-fish aquatic trade.

ian

Thx LJ

Such a licencing authority would need a team of experts to draw a list of potentially harmful fish species, where would they get these supposedly independent experts tomake up a list. Perhaps from the trade, medical research, beauty industry, food industry. Would you trust any of these?. I would not.

paulv wrote:

Such a licencing authority would need a team of experts to draw a list of potentially harmful fish species, where would they get these supposedly independent experts tomake up a list. Perhaps from the trade, medical research, beauty industry, food industry. Would you trust any of these?. I would not.

I can't blow my own trumpet here, but it was me who drew up a list of species and was instrumental in arranging (with our scientific officer in the HSI) a face-to-face meeting with Government authorities here and NI some while ago now to do something about the situation of invasive species.

We also invited some shops to attend to putr their case I would not put a case in support of a trade.

There was reason for all species I included, and reason why I suggested certain species that other would ban be taken off the banned list but treated as a regulated species instead.

I'll see if I can arrange an upload of the file (but it is 11 megabytes and I do not own copyright on the photos or identification images used in it).

ian

This is the first page (preface) to the full dialogue.....an outline of risks


Types of Hazard
Apart from the fish itself being the higher-level hazard, the fish can present various specific classifiable hazards. The risks should be assessed and managed in a reasonably practicable manner. Failure to acknowledge and control the risks in a reasonable manner could lead to a danger for native ecosystems.

1. Predatory

2. Proliferation/fecundity/general ‘pest’ issue

3. Food Competition

4. Breeding Site competition

5. Territory Competition

6. Other, including visual or presence, competition.

7. Altered Feeding patterns in other species (including non-fish species)

8. General Disruption to Ecosystem

9. Hybridisation with Native Species

10. Disease Spread

11. General Threat to non-fish species

12. General Threat to legal sports fishing (including social attitude)

13. General Threat to Food Fisheries Business

14. General Threat to Pet Trade (including social attitude)

A number of hazards/dangers overlap or are a sub-set of each other.

Sources of a Fish as a Hazard

1. Fish imported as a source of Game Fishing
2. Live Fish imported as a food-fish
3. Fish imported for research
4. Fish imported through legitimate Pet Trade
5. Fish imported through non-legitimate Pet Trade
6. Accidental release from any of the above
7. Deliberate release (eg pet owner not able to house specimen, or negligence) from any of the above
8. Malicious introduction

Factors Modifying Risk of Introduction or Invasion

1. Reasonably practicable means to identify hazards and potential risks.
2. Ability to control invasion
3. Ability to survive climate and conditions
4. Ability to reproduce
5. Ability to source food
6. Ability to avoid predation, or alter feeding patterns, from native or established species
7. Probability of fish being a favoured Game Fish
8. Probability of fish being a favoured food fish (cultural changes vary the cuisine of a country)
9. Probability of fish being desired in the Pet Trade (by either the pet trade or consumers)
10. Knowledge of prior IAS incidents.
11. Likely hood of Pet owner having facilities to house a species
12. Cost of fish
13. Difficulty in keeping a pet fish alters the likelihood of supply and demand.
14. Trends in ‘fashion’ altering the demand of a species.
15. Experience, skills, and awareness of fish owner or trader.
16. Changes in consumer profile with time and social environment.
17. Control by other legislation (eg CITES requirements).
18. Correct Species Identification.
19. Changes to known invasive potential
20. Awareness and Education.


Notes on the Pet Trade.

Most fish sold within the pet trade are fish from the tropical or sub-tropical regions.

Few potentially invasive species of fish are likely to be in demand within the pet trade.

A number of potentially invasive species have C.I.T.E.S appendix controls applied. This is likely to reduce the availability within the legitimate pet trade.
However, illegal trade on importing C.I.T.E.S appendix species is a different concern.

Many of the species most likely to be potentially invasive species are game fish, or not particularly desirable within a home aquarium as they do not have a noted popularity, or have very specialised keeping requirements.

However, it is difficult to predict trends in desirable fish species as things do change with time.

Fish such as Polyodon sp are a potential hazard, but the immense difficulty in keeping them and feeding them, the C.I.T.E.S regulations, and general availability and lack of popularity would tend to reduce the chances of this example species being imported for sale within the Pet Trade.
Discussion around how to control such an example threat would be somewhat moot.

At a sweeping statement, species having specialist requirements within captivity tend to be acquired by persons having appropriate and responsible experience.

Increased awareness given by Pet Shops selling fish can help to minimise the risk of accidental or deliberate release of potentially invasive species.

Awareness and education form an important part of risk management.

Ian,

The departments and their agencies, authorities and the scientific sector have been informed and advised on numerous occasions on the risk of aquatic invasive species.

The legislation currently in place can restrict the import and release of any non native species but if it is not acted upon and enforced its not much use.

I have come across three species of freshwater crayfish for sale, live for human consumption over the past six years. All three species have been bred outdoors albeit in controlled conditions and the animals then destroyed due to disease risk. On each occasion of successful breeding and availibility for sale being reported to the authorities no actn was taken to restrict future imports.

The strongest legislation in force here is under the fish health legislation but that doesn't stop imports privately coming through the ports undeclared or unnoticed.

I think it will be a case of when we get a disease or naturalisation of a species that we will wake up and do something.

You will be aware of the action groups for the crayfish plague, somewhat laughable in my opinion as it only kicks in once a sighting or death in a watercourse has been reported. It's a bit too late at that stage and the fire,fighting will be of little use.
Someday the country might decide to be proactive instead of reactive.

On my last inquiry, it costs 75€ for four kilos of crayfish plague carriers live and they don't come under the disease legislation as they are not list one or two species. Ludicrous

Thank you ian for a very comprehensive post of what the legislation covers. Bullfrogs post seems to sugest the authorities hands are tied as to when they can act on a perticular invasive species and shut the door after the horse has bolted.

The activity around existing legislation is pretty poor, there are some pretty powerful parts of the WildLife Act, but I was in talks on some future legislation.

There is little point in having one codification for ROI and one for NI......the codified legislation needs to cover both ROI and NI (because a fish or a plant do not observe political barriers ).

My take on the whole thing is to tackle things that might happen (that is akin to noting a nuclear power station is a hazard and act to reduce the risk of any danger as opposed to allowing it to explode then trying to fire-fight), but some people are only interested in what has happened (eg only focus on presently known invasives...probably because it is easier to state what is known rather than attempt to predict what might be a high risk).

The legislation I talk about has not go into full power yet.

One additional problem I see with crayfish is that some species are known to carry the Chytrid fungus.
Now, my group (The H.S.I.) have just published results showing the Island of Ireland to have no detected Chytrid yet.....but we do not want crayfish being that extra vector for the fungus.

Ian

Paul, not sure if the hands are tied or if they are in their pockets not wanting to come out.

I agree fully with Ian's comments below regarding a joint piece of legislation for the country as it makes sense, but the number of departments/agencies in each jurisdiction is mad.

Take the crayfish for example,
As a food item the following look after
Department of agriculture, food and marine
Sea fisheries protection authority
Environmental health officers
Food safety of Ireland

Fish disease perspective
Department of agriculture food and the marine
Marine institute

Uncontrolled release in the environment
National parks and wildlife
Inland fisheries ireland
Marine institute

As an ornamental import
Marine institute

A total of seven different bodies all,looking at different things and with different priorities and legal remits.

A bit of a mess really.

On a side note, between 500,000 to 700,000 goldfish were imported on an annual basis up to 2008 into ireland both north and south. All non native, potentially invasive, potentially carriers of disease to both salmonids and cyprinids and all destined for the aquarium trade.

Both UK and French anglers have been stopped from releasing cyprinids (carp mainly) in recent years that entered or attempted to enter the country in the boot of cars.

All scary stuff and all complicated issues to protect the native populations and disease free status for the country regarding live fish exports and imports.

The process is very slow here to even adopt the UK method of restricted species where much of the work has already been done.

I was once a full time farmer and still living on a family farm but to my shame am not that conservation conscious, however im aware of 3 native species already treatened from introduced species, red squirrel, irish stoat and red deer from the moutjack deer.
Upto 700k goldfish imported into ireland annually. Imagine how many die here every day to make up this trade. A well kept goldfish lives over 10years.