California Aquaculture Association

1
June 23, 2009
President Cindy Gustafson
California Fish and Game Commission
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Ms. Gustafson:
The California Aquaculture Association (CAA) writes to express our interest and concern regarding agenda Item #15 “RE: MARKING AND INSPECTION OF LIVE FISH TRANSPORTATION VEHICLES AND INSPECTIONS OF AQUACULTURE FACILITIES” scheduled for a discussion hearing at the June 25 meeting of the Commission in Woodland. We have a specific concern about the identification of vehicles used to bring live fish into California from other states. This subject matter overlaps in part with agenda Item #18 “RE: NEW RESTRICTED SPECIES PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS”, for which we have provided separate comment.
CAA has consistently supported identifying its member‟s delivery trucks as a means of identifying them as legal operations conducted by registered aquaculturalists. We are concerned about importation of fish from other states that do not comply with California regulations, including those regarding banned and restricted species. Sections 240 and 238 appear to provide an exemption to this labeling requirement. “A vehicle registered to a common carrier, seafood business, or pet trade business is not required to be labeled with the words “LIVE FISH” if that vehicle is not transporting a load that by weight, number, or monetary value consists of fifty percent or more of live aquatic plants and animals.” This exemption is vague and permits evasion of the intent of the regulation. Anyone can claim to be a „seafood business‟ and anyone carrying, in addition to their live fish load, a box filled with numerous items might plausibly claim exemption. Out of state importers that come from regions where quagga mussels, VHS, and CCV are endemic are exactly the vehicles that should be scrutinized by the Department. This loophole provides them ample means to evade identification that is used to create inspection opportunities. We submit that this is an unacceptable exception that should be revised or stricken from the regulation. All importers should follow exactly the same regulations as California producers.
As a matter of practical importance, we advise the Department that invoices for live fish shipments are usually based on weights determined at the point of sale. Often live fish deliveries involve multiple deliveries to several customers and that is impossible to create an accurate invoice until all of the customers have weighed out their portions of fish. Generally the driver of the delivery truck will have a loading record to estimate the gross weight of the shipment that is close to the total estimated weight ordered by the several customers. Strictly speaking, the regulation requires “sales invoice, waybill or bill of lading” that would imply an accurate weight of the fish delivered to each customer. In practice, the invoice and sales receipt are completed simultaneously at the point of delivery when the weight is determined. This practice is in part required by registration as a weigh master to insure the accurate delivery weight to the customer at the point of sale. We hope that these normal fish delivery practices and documentation are satisfactory under the proposed regulation.
For all of these reasons, we recommend that the language providing an exception to the labeling requirement be struck from the revisions. We further recommend that regulatory language regarding invoicing and bills of lading be brought into consistency with actual practice. We offer our assistance to the Commission in developing appropriate language.
Sincerely,
_________________________________ _______________________________
Mark Drawbridge, President

California Aquaculture Association

Anthonie M. Schuur, Vice President

CAA Government Affairs