black salties-cannot ship to ri

[ThrowingTimber]

Went into the shop mentioned two posts up yesterday I know Dave and Nina (shop owners) pretty well and went for no bs see for myself type of deal. They do intend to carry them. They did not have any at the shop as they are being held up. Nina did mention that they are sterilized during the breeding process.

Dave, did have a recent outing where he had 48 of them and landed 52 bass on them.

I was curious as to their size. Im a shad/ bluefish guy for the most part but I dont like to get locked into something where I overlook other stuff. So I went and checked it out.

[CaptDom]

An awful lot of time and energy was spent in June of 2005 to educate and inform the state of the history, taxonomy, and research that has gone into this baitfish. The state issued a permit in late June 2005 to Anderson farms for the importation of this baitfish via FedEx, it has since been placed on temporary hold.
The RI DEM did not circulate the info, and as a result now that widespread distribution is intended, they want to meet on this issue to consider all factors. RI Title 20-11-7 clearly defines a minnow as the young of any freshwater species not of the prohibited mentioned gamefish like smallmouth and other species including herring. Nowhere does it prohibit the use of goldfish as a bait in any RIGL, code, or published regulation, and under those two premises the Black Salty was imported with the proper minnow license.
There is a new board called the RI Bio Security Council, made up of 7 members of the state connected to wildlife and its management, in conjunction with the CRMC. It is they who will determine its status now, after the 9 months of importation already past, to be sure it poses no threats to RI watersheds and the inhabitants of them.
Most of you would be interested to know that CA, the state with the strictest environmental regulations in the nation, has permitted this fish to be imported into their state, and has prohibited it's use in their freshwater impoundments and rivers. Goldfish currently reside in all states except Alaska, and have for over 400 years been imported into this country. It is not an Asian carp, or any other cyprinid deemed detrimental and invasive. Long term(50 plus year) studies have been made on the Carrasius auratus, or goldfish, and their effects on other native species, with no reported problems as to invading any bodies of water and displacing or disrupting native inhabitants. The USDA and USGS have both certified that this fish has not been genetically manipulated or altered or modified in any way, by the definition used internationally by the Codex Alimentarious commission, and it has been certified that this fish has been reared in a purely conventional, time tested and approved manner.
The fact remains that permits were given, and much time, effort and money was spent insuring that this was done legally and effectively. Now that DEM has stalled the projects, the minnow farm and distributors here in RI are suffering an unfair burden, as are those who intend to use them as baits. All efforts were done in accordance and with direction from RI DEM, so any delays or stalling are not by any caused by associated interests in this baitfish.
These fish reside in every petshop in the state, as well as many private ponds and homes. If the Bio Security Council decides this fish is a bio hazard or invasive species, get ready for some major fallout in many other sectors besides the fishing realm. Can you imagine telling a child that their pet goldfish has to be taken from them? Or the petshops reaction to no more feeder fish or ornamental goldfish being allowed? This has farther reaching ramifications that I'm not sure are being considered.
I'm all for precautions, but this is absurd. These fish have been legal in this state for many, many years, and to now meet as to the species acceptability as an imported creature is just insane after all this time. There are volumes of studies on the permissibility of goldfish as bait, and no legal rulings which can be cited to currently not allow them into the state or their use as a baitfish, not to mention the very real stress this could take off the herring, menhaden, and American eel.

[eelman]

I am with you, it is plain stupid and this state showing its colors yet again....... Hopefully it all works out, if not head for the petshop and buy ther goldfish

[spence]

Given the raw numbers of fish potentially to be imported, to equate this with "pet shop" goldfish smacks of spin.

If the importer doesn't have a permit good for this year then they will have to follow the existing process, even if it's different.

I'm not trying to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& here, but I just don't see how the economic welfare of a few baitshops would be really harmed by a product that they've never sold...assuming the state has a valid legal reason to delay or forbid the sale as neighboring states have.

-spence

[Jay Dog]

I think we need to seperate the goldfish vs bait issue. You can buy goldfish in Ct but according to the regs you cannot use goldfish for bait. This discussion is about using them in Saltwater what does happen if they get released in freshwater how big will they get, will they breed? What's the affect on other species. Down south there may be enough natural predators to keep them in check how about up here?

[spence]

Reading the RI reg on the Chapter 20-10 Aquculture Biosecurity Board, it would seem the state has the issue under control.

Contrary to Parker23's initial post the law dictates a reasonable level of expertise to evaluate the situation for application of importation permits.

If both MA and CT have denied permits, I wouldn't expect to see them in RI...but given how this state works...who knows

-spence

[CaptDom]

Originally Posted by spence

Reading the RI reg on the Chapter 20-10 Aquculture Biosecurity Board, it would seem the state has the issue under control.

Contrary to Parker23's initial post the law dictates a reasonable level of expertise to evaluate the situation for application of importation permits.

If both MA and CT have denied permits, I wouldn't expect to see them in RI...but given how this state works...who knows

-spence

§ 20-10-1.2 Biosecurity Board – Powers and duties. – It shall be the duty of the biosecurity board to assist and advise the council in carrying out the provisions of this chapter. In performing this duty, the biosecurity board shall cooperate with appropriate state and federal agencies, including but not limited to the department of health, and shall recommend inspections as necessary to ensure compliance with public health standards. The biosecurity board shall from time to time review federal agency regulations pertaining to aquaculture disease and the importation of non-indigenous and genetically altered species and shall otherwise maintain a current understanding of aquatic diseases and management practices necessary to preserving the aquaculture industry and wild stock. The members of the biosecurity board shall serve without salary.

Title 20-10 chapter deals with Aquaculture, and why this board was created. This fish does not fall under that category, by the following definition: § 20-10-2 Definitions. – As used in this chapter:

(1) "Aquaculture" refers to the cultivation, rearing, or propagation of aquatic plants or animals under either natural or artificial conditions;

Read there where it mandates that they consult the appropriate federal and state agencies..... If they had, they should have no problems. These fish are shipped internationally by the minnow farm with all appropriate health certificates and permits, and are federally legal....

Furthermore:
§ 20-11-7 License required for selling fresh water minnows. – It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or barter or engage in the business of taking or catching for the purpose of selling or bartering fresh water live minnows for bait, or to possess more than one hundred (100) fresh water live minnows, without first procuring a license from the department of environmental management. For the purpose of this chapter, "fresh water minnows" shall be defined to include all minnows and the young of all species of fresh water fish except the game species, trout, northern pike, pickerel, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, shad, Atlantic salmon, and alewives.

This is the permit given to the minnow farm and the local distributor. The definition is clear cut. This is a minnow by their own ruling.

MA and CT both have rulings and laws already in place dealing with prohibition of goldfish and use as a bait in inland FRESH waters. MA marine division says it is legal to use as bait in MARINE waters. Sale and importation are different than useage. The issue at stake and affect here is the RI DEM's intial permitting and subsequent back-tracking after the fact(almost a year), and the fact that no laws exist for the denial or delay of importation......

[CaptDom]

Originally Posted by spence

Given the raw numbers of fish potentially to be imported, to equate this with "pet shop" goldfish smacks of spin.

If the importer doesn't have a permit good for this year then they will have to follow the existing process, even if it's different.

I'm not trying to be a #^&#^&#^&#^& here, but I just don't see how the economic welfare of a few baitshops would be really harmed by a product that they've never sold...assuming the state has a valid legal reason to delay or forbid the sale as neighboring states have.

-spence

Again, the importer renewed the permit for 2006, but it is now on hold. What you are not realizing is that if the bio security council rules that the Carrasius auratus is a threat, ALL importation will have to stop. Its not just the fishing realm this will affect. How can you differentiate a fish with the exact taxonomy(genetic makeup) and exact latin scientific name simply because of where it sold? The answer is you can't. The fact remains that no law exists prohibiting their use as a bait in RI, period. You can't make up the rules as you go. They have had over 200 years to put a rule in the books dealing with this fish, and they didn't do it.

Neighboring states never gave a permit in the first place, the issue here is a permit was given, so the minnow farm spent tons of money dedicating several ponds to grow their minnows larger for use here, spent tons of money to advertise them and develop a distributorship, as have many local baitshops under the pretense that a permit was issued already(in 2005 and 2006).Advertising, live wells, and time =$$. The economic impact will also affect every petshop in the state, and every school child who keeps one as a pet as it is the importation of the fish they are challenging, if denied, all goldfish will have to be banned or they will be in violation of the ruling.
Their are studies galore on this fish and its supposed impacts, available to anyone who asks the for them or has the inclination to inform themselves; god forbid anyone actually do a little research before weighing in on anything . 80 years of use as a bait in both salt and fresh water in Texas should be an ample study sampling, don't you think? The amount of predators in the watersheds down there does not differ substantially from any other states, nor does how or what they eat.

[FormerUser]

As far as a little research goes the Black Salty is none of these:
http://species.fishindex.com/species..._goldfish.html
Related yes...carassius auratus no.Its an engineered fish.

RI has had over 200 years to put a rule in the books?How do you come up with that?They've been tested in TX for 80yrs?Huh?Anderson Farms has only been in business 50yrs.The Black Salty itself beginnings were in the 90s.

As far as predators in other watersheds like in TX.Lets see there's Stripers,Hybrid Stripers,Redfish,Corvina,Gar,several Catfish species.
None of these can be found in NE waters.

The Black Salty has potential but I see a little more scientific research needing to be done before I want it here.

Btw quote all the rules and regs you want it ain't a minnow its a member of the goldfish family.

[FormerUser]

Cap you either gotta be a salesman for Anderson or a stock holder in the company.You're WAY to defensive over these fish.Your life doesn't depend on these fish does it?

I'm done with this thread.Time to head BACK out and get MORE bass.

[CaptDom]

Originally Posted by basswipe

As far as a little research goes the Black Salty is none of these:
http://species.fishindex.com/species..._goldfish.html
Related yes...carassius auratus no.Its an engineered fish.

RI has had over 200 years to put a rule in the books?How do you come up with that?They've been tested in TX for 80yrs?Huh?Anderson Farms has only been in business 50yrs.The Black Salty itself beginnings were in the 90s.

As far as predators in other watersheds like in TX.Lets see there's Stripers,Hybrid Stripers,Redfish,Corvina,Gar,several Catfish species.
None of these can be found in NE waters.

The Black Salty has potential but I see a little more scientific research needing to be done before I want it here.

The first recorded goldfish was imported in RI in the early 1800's. By my math that makes 200 years or so.

The bottom picture in your link is of the dark variety carrasius auratus, which is the INTERNATIONALLY CERTIFIED taxonomy of the Black Salty. That picture looks like the majority of the Black Saltys shipped on a regular basis. The Black Salty is a Goldfish, plain and simple, its beginnings were hundreds of years ago, its trademarked and copyrighted nickname were created in the late 90's after much consideration by the farm that decided to market them.

Goldfish dark and orange variety, have been used in TX as a bait for 80 plus years, again the Black Salty is a common goldfish with advanced selective breeding techniques to exhibit remarkable short term salt water survival.

The amount, or distribution percentage of predators in each states watershed is waht I was referring to, not species. Last I checked we had several species of catfish, stripers, and a few predators Texas doesn't have. Thank god we don't have hybrid stripers, in my opinion. The fact remains that in any body of water, a chain exists and resident fish will occupy a percentage of the given biomass for each specific body of water. The distributions of these fish does not greatly vary in any way in almost all closed environments in the US except where an invasive species has wreaked havoc.

Before you go claiming something was engineered, do your homework. The term genetically modified, engineered, or altered has a very specific and exact definition as deemed by the international governing body Codex Alimentarious Commission. Since the breeding techniques used by Anderson farms do not alter or modify the gene makeup of these fish, and they use commonly practiced selective breeding techniques, this exludes the fish from any association with a genetically manipulated organism.
The USDA defines the term "genetically modified" to mean methods "including cell fusion, microencapsulation, recombitant DNA technology(including gene deletion, gene doubling, introducing a foreign gene, and changing positions of genes). they further state in CFR 7 205.2 the term genetically modified, altered, or engineered specifically excludes "traditional breeding including selective breeding practices, fermentation, or in vitro fertilization."

CFR 40 725.455 states the EPA succintly defines "genetic modification, alteration, or engineering as introduced genetic material".

Under even the broadest definition these fish do not even come close to being genetically engineered, manipulated, or altered, period. Quit claiming otherwise.

Selective breeding practices have been used in the US since the 1700's, in everything from horses, cattle, pigs, chickens, and many other animals. For that matter, humans engage in selective breeding by seeking out a well formed, healthy, and attractive mate to reproduce.

If you want volumes of scientific research, I can provide you with that as well. The State of RI and most other states defers to the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluffs for their taxonomy and studies in regards to fisheries/aquaculture, and this UAPB authority conducted a five year study of many different aspects of this fish, with many publications put forth as a result, including but not limited to its taxonomy; common goldfish, dark variety. All the research one could want has already been conducted, so no further tests should be needed. In addition, the USDA, USGS in conjunction with APHIS, and the US Fish and Wildlife all have done studies and rendered very similar conclusions and research in regards to the impact of this fish on native species. They all seem to state unequivocably that these fish are not an invasive species anywhere they currently inhabit in the wild.Every state except Alaska has resident goldfish in the wild, and 46 states have breeding populations, including RI. That would pretty much conclude that they are an acceptable species on a national level, no?

PM me with your email address if you want hard copies of all these studies and certifications, don't just take my word for it. Knowledge is essential for any informed decisions.

btw, i never claimed it was a minnow, the state of RI did by their own definition. I always asserted it was a goldfish.