Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia (VHS)

Anyone have any inside knowledge of this Federal Order?

On October 24, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service issued a Federal Order immediately prohibiting the movement of 37 species of live fish susceptible to VHS. VHS-susceptible live fish originating outside of the prohibited areas may move through or to the affected States and Provinces.

http://www.aphis.usd...s/vhs/vhs.shtml

List of VHS Susceptible Species :
http://www.aphis.usd...ble_species.pdf

Please make a note that the species listed as Susceptible is based on data that has currently been collected.
The fish listed are those that HAVE tested positive for VHS. Other species are also likely to be added to this list.
You can pretty much at this point point to Family and call it Susceptible.

Thank you Mr. Lamprey. The tests for this disease cost $20-$50 per test! They are testing sparingly! If a black crappie is susceptible, bet your breeches, that so is a white crappie.

Please take note: NOW IS HIGH TIME FOR ALL OF US TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT SANITIZING NETS BETWEEN COLLECTING LOCATIONS

Please take note: NOW IS HIGH TIME FOR ALL OF US TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT SANITIZING NETS BETWEEN COLLECTING LOCATIONS

Yes it is.......We "herpyologist" types were the first to recognize that in studying different Frog locations and not being careful about sanitizing nets, boots, ETC. that we were actually spreading Disease to previously unaffected sites by not being careful about this.

It turned out that in trying to figure out frog declines through surveys that here we where tramping around the country spreading frog killing bacteria everywhere we went.. Just making it worse.

On a personal note I need to get better at this! I move too fast!


I thought you were a nature-ologist?

I thought you were a nature-ologist?

Nature-Icthy-herpy-ologist .... I like just Nature-ologist though....

Suggestions for Options to changing the Federal Order
November 1, 2006


1. Provisions for movement to slaughter.

This provision would allow for the interstate movement of the 37 VHS-susceptible species currently listed in the Federal Order to a slaughter facility if the animals are intended for human consumption regardless of testing status or origin.

2. Allow movement within the 8 prohibited states.

This provision would allow for the interstate movement of the 37 VHS-susceptible species among the 8 States currently listed in the Federal Order. Movement into one of these states would be based on the regulations of the receiving state. The prohibition would remain in force on animals leaving the 8 states.

3. Provision for movement of the 37 species of fish from the States currently listed in the Federal Order to outside of those States.

This provision would allow for the interstate movement of the 37 VHS-susceptible species from the 8 states currently listed in the Federal Order into any other State in the U.S. Movement would be permitted if the state competent authority for aquatic animal health certified that the facility from which the animals originated were engaged in a State approved program, the animals test negative according to that State program, and the testing program meets the requirements of the receiving state.

4. Provisions for movement of the 37 species of fish from the States currently listed in the Federal Order to research/diagnostic laboratories.

This provision would allow for the interstate movement of the 37 VHS-susceptible species from the States currently listed in the Federal Order to research/diagnostic laboratories in any State, if the competent authority for aquatic animal health in the receiving State approves of the movement and approves the facility into which the fish will be moved.


The following two topics were discussed as options to be addressed within the interim rule (or other) process rather than in an amendment to the Federal Order:

1. The watershed must be taken into consideration for surveillance and movement when developing the interim rule.

2. Ban the uptake of ballast water from infected waters. APHIS will discuss with other Federal agencies involved in ballast water control.

The following two topics were discussed as options to be addressed within the interim rule (or other) process rather than in an amendment to the Federal Order:

1. The watershed must be taken into consideration for surveillance and movement when developing the interim rule.

2. Ban the uptake of ballast water from infected waters. APHIS will discuss with other Federal agencies involved in ballast water control.

These should have been in the first place.

ESPECIALLY #2.. which should have been in effect years ago and long before this became an issue.
Naturally though most of us have been ignored by APHIS about this for a very long time.

Please take note: NOW IS HIGH TIME FOR ALL OF US TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT SANITIZING NETS BETWEEN COLLECTING LOCATIONS

So for those of us that aren't doing this, do you have advice on how to effectively accomplish this in the field? My fish room practices won't scale to work this way.