VHS

The following fish CAN NOT BE EXPORTED from Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Wisconsin. So please keep this in mind when shipping fish to other nanfa members.

Atlantic cod Gadus morhua
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus
Bluntnose minnow Pimephales notatus
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Brown trout Salmo trutta
Burbot Lota lota
Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch
Chum salmon Oncorhynchus keta
Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides
Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Grayling Thymallus thymallus
Haddock Gadus aeglefinus
Herring Clupea spp
Japanese flounder Paralichthys olivaceus
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
Muskellunge Esox masquinongy
Pacific cod Gadus macrocephalus
Pike Esox lucius
Pink salmon Onchorhynchus gorbuscha
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss
Redhorse sucker Moxostoma spp
Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris
Rockling Onos mustelus
Round goby Neogobius melanostomus
Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu
Sprat Sprattus spp
Turbot Scophthalmus maximus
Walleye Sander vitreus
White bass Morone chrysops
White perch Morone Americana
Whitefish Coregonus spp
Yellow perch Perca flavescens

Any fish not listed above is considered to be unsusceptible to VHS, and is legal to transport out of the listed states. It strikes me as strange that, for instance, Black crappie are susceptible, and White crappie are not.

For additional information: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/aqua/

Edit: I'm so embarrassed! I just realized I responed to a post from 2007! I'm deleting my response!

Edited by az9, 10 August 2009 - 10:17 PM.

In general you are right, Richard, this is very serious, and we need to do what we can to stop its spread. However, I'll disagree with the following:


If that were so, then the order would merely be prohibiting the transportation of susceptible fish out of the affected watershed, that being the Great Lakes watershed. Consider the following:

1. The order prohibits movement of listed susceptible fish from one affected state to another. I cannot catch a listed susceptible fish in the Lake Erie drainage in Pennsylvania and take it into the Lake Erie drainage in Ohio? And what good does this do? Prohibiting the movement of listed susceptible fish into an affected area helps nothing, regardless of where it originates.

2. The order prohibits the movement of listed susceptible fish from unaffected areas. I cannot move a listed susceptible fish caught in the Delaware River drainage and ship it out of Pennsylvania, even though the Delaware River drainage is unaffected? And the good this does is? Even more illogically, I CANNOT catch a listed susceptible fish on the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware River drainage and ship it out of state, but I CAN catch such a fish on the New Jersey side of the Delaware River drainage and ship it out of state. I can take a New Jersey fish across the river to Pennsylvania, but I can't take a Pennsylvania fish across the river to New Jersey, even though they were caught in the same drainage, and even though the drainage is unaffected. Where is the logic behind this?

3. The order does not prohibit intrastate movement of listed susceptible fish. So I CAN take such a fish from the Lake Erie drainage in Pennsylvania, and move it to the Delaware River drainage in Pennsylvania. So the spread of this disease is not prevented at all by this order. If I did this, then New Jersey really would have a problem. And if I moved a fish from the Lake Erie drainage in Pennsylvania and took it home to the Monongahela River drainage, every state in the entire Mississippi drainage could come to have this problem. Yet such movement is NOT prohibited by the order.

So yes, this IS your government controlling your lives, in a totally illogical way. We, on the other hand, need to be logical and responsible. I would not feel guilty moving a fish anywhere in the affected drainage, regardless of state lines. Since I don't live in the affected drainage, that's not going to happen, but I would not feel guilty doing it. We must not move fish out of the affected drainage, even intrastate, and release them (or any fish that has been in contact with them).

If we follow the NANFA Code of Ethics, and NEVER release a fish back into the wild (except for immediate catch and release), then this whole issue is a moot point. Then the only VHS we will have to worry about will be in our VCRs. I say we make this our goal.

I have read that there has been some success controlling this disease in Europe, by the way. So don't give up. Just don't release your fish, and let the responsible authorities worry about eradicating the disease.

Ditto n responding to a post in 2007.

Ed,

Don't you know that the virus is acutely aware of state boundaries?

It was explained to me it's state boundaries vs. watersheds because state boundaries are more easily enforceable. However I think we can all see the flaw in that as unless each state has someone at each highway and dirt road leading into the state searching vehicles or fish hauling trucks... Well you get the point.

Edited by az9, 10 August 2009 - 10:19 PM.