Aquaculture licence

Tlrobb

I just read on a UC Davis website that the CDFG requires an aquaculture licence to raise fish for consumption in California. It did not specify if this applied to personal consumption or not. Does anyone know if this applies to us?

http://www.calfish.ucdavis.edu/files/142973.pdf

keith

i think most states won't make you get a license if you're only raising for personal consumption.. in ohio you have to have a license if you transport fish

Samuel L Jackson

there are certain fish that you can raise without a license and certain ones that you need an aquaculture license for. For instance in Florida, you are allowed to raise blue tilapia without a license, but need a license for all other types of tilapia

tdbrueggen

Just call the "authorities" of your state for a final answer. In Texas, the supreme authority on potentially invasive and exotic species is the parks and wildlife department. Here's me story:

I had read from several different sources online that Mozambiques could be had in Texas for personal use without any sort of permits or licenses. All you have to have is a bill of sale from some who DOES have a Texas Exotics Species permit.

So with that excitement in mind, I got a few Mozambiques in a 90 gallon tank to start raising for breeders, and started planning my system. I was in a local aquatics store and mentioned aquaponics to the owner. He immediately brought up the subject of tilapia, and said that ALL species were illegal in Texas, and that what I'd read online was BS posted by the fisheries themselves, who were selling the fish for personal use through a loophole in the definition of personal "consumption". He pulled up the TPWD website and showed me the page where it very clearly said what he told me. Understandably, this scared me and crushed my dreams for a moment.

So the next day I called TPWD, and they corrected him! What I'd read online was right! There website does say that all the fish are prohibited, but the Texas Statutes lay out the exceptions for Mozambiques. It makes sense to me really. They want people to do their homework! And rightly so. There is still that bill of sale required ( they call it a transfer or transport permit).

The "problem" with this means you can't buy cheap fingerlings online from out of state unless you have the exotics license yourself. It will cost me about $500, but if this works out for me, I am considering doing it just to open up my options. Once you have the permit, then you can sell your fish as well, and you can keep Blues and Niles as well.

So again, don't just read stuff online. Call the top authority, get the name of whoever you speak to, and ask them to provide you with the written documentation, so you can have it in hand to ensure you are operating legally. Make sure your questions are clear, and anything that could be shaded gray, like personal "use" vs "consumption" are explicitly clear. Good luck!

PLJ

That is an interesting story followed by sound advice, tdbrueggen, and just as applicable down this way in the various states and territories of Australia.

Stuart Chignell

Not wanting to be appear to tin hatty but getting advice from bureaucrats does not necessarily protect you.

I can not remember his name but a cray fish firsherman after getting advice and maps of where he could and could not fish from relevant department was charged with illegal fishing and lost his license, boat and had to pay a big fine.

Judge was not happy and described the fisherman as an "honest man" and said that the case should never have been prosecuted but the defense of ignorance of the law was not acceptable. The fishermans defense was that he was unaware that the maps that he had been supplied with were out of date and that he had undertaken all reasonable efforts to learn where he could and could not fish. The judge acknowledged that he could not be expected to have done more and it was unreasonable to expect him to have a better understanding of where it was legal to fish than the local government representative. This is why the case should not have been pursued by the DPP.

However, since it had and since it was clear that he had broken the law he still lost his lincense, boat and had to pay the fine.

Can someone from SA remember this guys name. I've done a quick google but I don't remember enough about him to be able to find him easily.

Marc d W

Often these penalties apply as they are mandated in the relevant legislation, so to some extent the magistrates hands are tied. The extent they are tied is legislation and therefore jurisdiction dependent.
However if in a scenario where bad information is provided, especially by government officials, leading to a penalty there is the opportunity to seek damages through the civil courts where the burden of proof is lower. Often a great deal of "evidence" is provided and tested by the courts through the criminal proceedings making the civil case easier to pursue.
There is often a lot more to these stories than may first appear.
A good rule of thumb when getting advice from officials is always get it in writing. if you get it from a website, get a printout and keep it; ensure that the copy has the date displayed. And if charged get a good lawyer as that can often mean the difference between a finding of guilt or innocence or mitigating the loss through a civil claim.

Stuart Chignell

That was why the magistrate so so furious with the prosecutors. He said that they had the discretion to proceed with prosecution or not. Whereas he did not have the discretion to not cancel the license, confiscate equipment and issue a fine (minimum was still massive).

The final ruling on the case was at least two years ago. I haven't heard anything about a civil case.

Marc d W

I bet he was. Magistrates as a rule don't like the mandatory/minimum penalties as it take the control away from them. And bureaucrats like to take the power from the judiciary by including them in the legislation and the parliament allows them to do it. I have seen a magistrate that was so incensed at the mandatory penalty that needed to apply that was disproportionate to the crime, that he used his powers under the Sentencing Act to impose a suspended jail term for 24 hours thereby avoiding 5 lots of a minimum fine of $2000. In this case he had some options and was concerned enough to find out what they were and to exercise them.

Marc d W

in WA Section 24 of the Criminal Code states:

Quote:

Mistake of fact
A person who does or omits to do an act under an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief in
the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the act or omission to any
greater extent than if the real state of things had been such as he believed to exist.

However, (and this is the kicker) the operation of this rule may be excluded by the express or implied provisions of the law relating to the subject.

On the other hand it may be difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to negate beyond reasonable doubt the honesty of the person's belief and the time at which the person held the belief, given that these elements go to the subjective state of mind of a person. However, the reasonableness of the belief could be challenged.

Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics