The live shipment of aquatic species is attracting regulatory and public attention because of the risk that nonindigenous species might be unintentionally transported and introduced to new locations where they could harm the environment, the economy, or human health.
Nonindigenous species are those introduced from a foreign country or moved outside their natural ranges in the United States.
It is diffcult to predict whether a nonindigenous aquatic species could survive and reproduce in a new environment and, if it did, whether it would harm the environment.
Some nonindigenous species have become established in new locations and a few of them have become problematic.
However, popular perception has been influenced by news and regulatory agency reports, which often depict all nonindigenous fish, reptiles, crustaceans, molluscs and plants as destructive invaders.
Unfortunately, the introduction of nonindigenous aquatic species into new locations is frequently linked to commercial aquaculture, because many aquatic species cultured in the United States are shipped live from farm to farm or to processors, wholesalers, retailers or final customers.
These shipments may travel just a few miles in tank trucks or thousands of miles by international air freight. The frequency of these shipments may vary from daily truck deliveries to a regional fish processing plant, to 10,000 or more boxes of ornamental fish a week delivered to major cities throughout North America, Europe, and Asia.
The methods and frequencies of these shipments raises questions about live species production and about the handling, grading, packing and transportation practices that may allow nonindigenous hitchhiking species to escape or be released in new places.
The response by federal, state or local regulatory agencies has been to impose species prohibitions, culture regulations, and permit requirements that add to production costs. Adopting common-sense, practical procedures at the farm to prevent unintended hitchhikers will accomplish the following:
- Decrease the possibility of live animal and plant shipments containing nonindigenous species
- Reduce the risk of federal or state regulatory actions
- Improve the public’s perception of aquaculture
- Reduce shipping costs and make buyers happy by shipping only the species promised
- Reduce the effort required for post-delivery handling and inspection by the recipient Aquaculturists are strongly encouraged to adopt the harvesting, handling, packing and shipping practices described in this publication to reduce the risk of hitchhikers.
This is not only a productivity and perception issue, but also one with legal implications. At the end of this publication there are Web addresses for additional information concerning species subject to federal prohibition, restriction or permitting by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
It is also important to know and follow pertinent state regulations concerning the possession and transport of organisms in both the shipping and receiving state.
Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point A management tool for preventing or eliminating hitchhikers that has been adopted by bait fishers and fish farmers in Michigan and Minnesota, as well as federal and state fish hatchery managers throughout the U.S., is Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP).
With this system, a producer examines each step of the production process—harvesting, handling, packaging and shipping— and identifies the hazards and the critical controls needed to prevent or eliminate the hazards. A plan is then developed to implement the controls.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and University of Texas–Arlington Web site (http://www.haccp-nrm.org/) includes a free HACCP Planning Wizard. This step-by-step, interactive guide yields an aquatic invasive species HACCP plan and record-keeping forms. HACCP is particularly suited to public sector hatcheries and larger corporations.
HACCP can be a useful risk management tool for identifying where contamination or escape might occur and for developing procedures to reduce this risk. Formal HACCP plans and procedures typically mandate record-keeping requirements that would be costly for family farms.
However, many small-scale producers find that it is useful. A criticism of HACCP is that it is based on record-keeping, which may lack credibility unless a third-party verifies a farm’s HACCP plan, employee training and records.
Authors:
Paul W. Zajicek, Jeffrey E. Hill, Nathan Stone, Hugh Thomforde, Cortney Ohs,
Diane Cooper, Gef Flimlin, Brad McLane and William D. Anderson
