A virus with a complex history in the Great Lakes region, Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia virus (VHSV) IVb was first detected in the region in 2005 in wild fish, and a cascade of regulatory action was quickly enacted at the federal- and then state-levels. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) quickly instituted a stop movement order of live fish, including those cultured by private, public, and tribal fish producers, across Great Lakes state lines. This stop movement order immediately impacted and/or raised concerns among fish producers from all sectors in the Great Lakes region, with private farmers worried about business continuity and public and tribal hatcheries concerned about meeting seasonal stocking quotas. After push back from fish producing stakeholders against the agency’s decision, the USDA amended the order and gave state natural resource and/or agriculture agencies jurisdiction over managing live fish movements.
As of 2024, state agencies take varied approaches to managing fish movements with specific requirements in place to potentially curb the spread or introduction of VHSV IVb within or into their state. Such requirements include VHSV testing of as part of fish health certificate requirements as well as requiring specific testing for fish coming from “VHS-affected” areas or for fish that the individual states deem as susceptible to VHSV IVb. As part of a USDA National Animal Disease Preparedness and Response Program funded project that focuses on the risk of VHSV IVb spread in the Great Lakes region, we sought to summarize and characterize the state-specific requirements for inter- and intra-state fish movements and for VHSV management and response. Collaborating with Minnesota Sea Grant and the National Sea Grant Law Center, we summarized publicly available state regulations and/or regulations provided by the representatives from the appropriate agency in each Great Lake state. Additionally, representatives from Tribal Nations located within the Great Lakes region were consulted regarding any VHS management and/or fish movement regulations that are put in place in their own nations. Regulations surrounding the following areas were summarized: 1) state specific definitions related to VHS; 2) areas related to VHS management and fish movements where external guidance is followed; 3) multi-agency roles and responsibilities in VHS management and fish movements; 4) fish health certificate requirements for movement; 5) VHS testing requirements for movement; and 6) additional movement requirements for fish. Upon completion, the summaries were validated by representatives from state agencies or tribal nations and any corrections were made.
Here, we discuss the consistencies and differences observed among Great Lakes states and tribal nations in how VHSV and fish movements are managed. Additionally, we discuss how these findings looked at in tandem with findings from a regional VHS risk assessment can assist state and tribal agencies in making fish movement and VHS management decisions.