Koi Ponds Banned in Utah

The definition of “private fish pond” here as it is defined in the document: “a pond, reservoir, or other body of water, or any fish culture system which is contained on privately owned land and used for holding or rearing fish for a private, noncommercial purpose.”

 

In perusing some Utah state proposed legislation last week, the IPPCA discovered some very disturbing language buried in the back of a newly proposed law for the state of Utah. Here is the phrasing that they, and they feel you as well, should be very concerned about;

R657-59-17. Division Authority to Restrict Private Ponds.
(1)(a) Stocking and maintaining aquaculture products in private fish ponds pursuant to this rule is a conditional privilege that is subject to unilateral modification or termination by the division or other competent legal authority.
(b) Those who establish and maintain private fish ponds under this rule do so with the understanding that the laws and regulations governing private fish ponds are subject to change and that such changes may require:
(i) discontinuation of stocking particular species, strains, or reproductive capabilities of aquaculture product in the pond;
(ii) partial or complete depopulation of the aquaculture product in the pond;
(iii) modifications in screen requirements and other structural elements associated with the pond; or
(iv) new restrictions and requirements in connection with operating the pond and maintaining the aquaculture product within it.

(2) The division may unilaterally restrict a private fish pond operating with or without a certificate of registration or exemption certificate from receiving or possessing particular species, strains and reproductive capabilities of aquaculture product previously authorized when stocking or continued possession of the product in the pond:

(a) violates any federal, state or local law or any agreement between the state and another party;
(b) negatively impacts native wildlife species listed by the division as sensitive or by the federal government as threatened or endangered;
(c) poses an identifiable adverse threat to other wildlife species or their habitat; or
(d) poses an identifiable adverse impact to the division’s game fish stocking regimes or wildlife management objectives.

(3) Any costs or losses incurred as the result of future modifications to this rule or the operational status of a private fish pond made pursuant to this section, including terminations and depopulations, shall be borne exclusively by the owner, lessee or operator of the private fish pond.

Act now, the comments period ends August 14th. We also note, again with grave concern, that there does not appear to be any public record being made or addressed in regards this issue. Let your voice be heard, we would suggest and recommend a call for a complete withdrawal of this entire section from this item of legislation. Call for the removal of section R657-59-17 in its entirety!!!! CC the IPPCA at: info@IPPCA.com
Note: Highlights and underlines added by IPPCA staff.

See following link for full document: https://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/bulletin/2008/20080715/31625.htm