Subject: New Zealand Bee Diseases

From: [email-masked] (Andy Nachbaur)
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 11:14:00 GMT

*posted in the BEE-List..
                    ----------------------------------------
CVE>From: Cliff Van Eaton <[email-masked]>
   >Date:         Mon, 10 Jun 1996 15:47:51 +1200
   >Subject:      New Zealand Bee Diseases

  [WARNING, if you are not interested in opinion, or are satisfied that
  facts reported by representatives of any government have some value
  similar to the words of the LORD from the Holy Bible DO NOT READ THIS
  POST, trash it, and put the posters name in your personal "kill file"
  as it contains nothing but PERSONAL OPINION and does not represent the
  "official" view of any government or any opinion other then the
  writers own.]

**NOTE: The fastest way to end a tread is NOT to post back to it or
  use E-MAIL.

You have been WARNED [page down] for the un-official reply to the
official reply from the New Zealand's Apicultural Advisory Officer.

CVE>In reply to Mr. Patton's message to BEE-L of June 8, 1996 <No Subject
   >Given>, I would like to clarify the following points for subscribers:

CVE>1.  My position with the NZ government is Apicultural Advisory Officer,
   >not "Agricultural" Advisory Officer, as Mr. Patton states.

Well, Cliff, I Love My Boss too, even if my position is from the very
low perspective of being a life long self employed beekeeper since 1955
and in involuntary forced semi retirement because of beekeeping problems
here in California. D, D, and D; Dead bees, Diseased bees, and a Darn
bee thief who stole the last 500 healthy hives I had out of a almond
orchard the early spring of 95.

CVE>3.  The disease "melanosis" was not included in the list of bee diseases
   >present in New Zealand included in my April 19, 1996 posting because

Humm, very interesting, but not clear as to why it was not included
other then its a "maybe" disease you have but don't want other's to know
"officially" you have it, relying on technical semantics to make your case
you have it but you don't have it in the report. Do you know about foot
notes, much better then the foot in mouth disease.

   >Dr. Liu's article did not state that the causitive organism of melanosis ha
   >been isolated, either in NZ bees, or in NZ queens introduced into Candian

Much quoting left out but did you know that a few scientists may believe
that if you have one acarapis bee mite there is a pretty good chance you
have them all or in time will have? Lets see there were four acarapis
mites, now there are three, but all of them feed on the bee in the same
way, but from different positions on or in the bee, but not to worry
only the one's found in the breathing tubes are reason for concern, but
then they also can be found in other internal organs and spaces. Yes it
is clear, acarapis mites are not good on our bees and NZ does have
acarapis mites on some of their bees at one time or another the same as
most other areas of the world that have looked for them.

CVE>4. Mr. Patton's states that all the old time beekeepers he has interviewed
   >doubt that NZ is free of EFB.  I am unsure as to what evidence these
   >persons have for such a claim.

One of the problems is that people from NZ who keep bees and are outside
of the government or are not involved in the bee export market or
representing others who may have such interests do talk with other
keepers of bees and they have a opinion that is somewhat different from
the "official one" of the NZ Apricot Advasiory Officer on some of
the claims of superior health of NZ bees made by others and government
and regulatory officials.  And NO I am not about to give out names as I
am sure others have ways of dealing with these beekeepers and
re-educating them on the official regulatory or government position.

   >posting of April 19, 1996, that New Zealand is free of European
   >foulbrood is based on a sound surveillance programme.   Government
   >apiculture personnel inspect 500 apiaries throughout NZ each year, with
   >the apiaries chosen for their proximity to risk areas.

Here in California, the Left Coast of the USA we have individual
beekeepers who check 500 apiaries each year if you count multiply visits
it would even bee much higher. We have found just about every kind of
disease, pest, and predator, bees can get with the exception of a few
exotics that some say would carry the bees, boxes and all away. We are
always looking for some new ones to challenge our beekeeping skills.

It's the total numbers of hives and the percentage of those numbers
inspected that tells the true and honest story of apiary inspection, not
numbers of apiaries inspected which could be any number of bee hives per
apiary from a few to a lot. It is also somewhat important to clarify
that bee inspections are made on individual hives and that if one hive
or ten hives are opened and 100 hives are in the yard that to some with
regulatory mind set it may be a 100% apiary inspection. Not to a real
beekeeper for whom it would only be one or ten hives inspected out of
100 in the bee yard or apiary site. When a beekeeper talks about bee
inspection he is normally talking about looking at every hive and not
some magic formula that gives some statistical probability that
something you have not ever seen does not exist. God made bees and made
them subject to diseases, pests, predators, and change, and if any
beeman lives long enough and looks hard enough he will someday find them
all without traveling farther then his own bee yards. Not finding any
one of them does not indicate they don't exist, only that they were not
found, yet.

   >etc).  The surveillance system is audited and subject to review by
   >recognised overseas government agriculture officials and beekeeping
   >industry representatives.

This is good and many beekeepers here have a go at our own agricultural
and government officials in legislative hearings and the like, and have
been successful in reducing their numbers and funding, now relying more
on the beekeepers own abilities to detect and suppress disease or any
economic beekeeping problem he has. Kind of a back to basics movement of
self reliance and with little or no government interference. There are
still many beekeepers who would like government to do it all for them,
especially so the one's who would like to ship bees into political areas
that require some form of official government health certification, but
because of the realities in the bee regulatory industry and its value to
society as a whole they are not having it their way for the rest of us
and those who need the paper work are getting the paper work making
everyone happy and secure in their work.

CVE>5. Mr. Patton states that the "claim that NZ is free of EFB has in the past
   >been an effective zoosanitary trade barrier which has been an effective
   >trade and economic tool for the NZ honeybee industry as this claim
   >prevents any honeybees, honey and or used equipment from entering
   >NZ".  As I made clear in my posting of April 19, 1996, imports of
   >honeybees, honey and other bee products are allowed entry into NZ
   >provided they are determined to have a low risk of introducing exotic
   >honey bee diseases.

I like this bureaucratic government erratica as it seems as familiar as
such statement as "apparently free of pests and disease at the time of
inspection", but in reality it is, and always has been and will continue
to be in the future "bee buyer bee ware" when you get down to the bottom
line in the bee business or hobby it is far better to know the beekeeper
who you are dealing with then the bee inspector who inspects the bees as
the fox smells his own hole first so a beekeepers knows his own bees
best.

   >Millions of dollars of such products are imported into NZ each
   >year.

I am sure you do not mean to be misleading and would like to part this
out to the number of pounds of bees, number of queen bees, as it really
appears that you are including the value of honey and other bee products
imported into NZ to give the appearance of a open market for bees and
queens and I don't believe that is what you wanted to do as it would
be very deceptive and to some and less then the true facts to the reader
who is not familiar with your countries history of importations of bees
and queens. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

In ending I would say again, NZ has there landing rights in Hawaii,
be happy in that, but not so secure that in attacking any beekeeper
>from  the prospective of a government position of any class or rank
that these landing rights could not be revoked. You could find the
political back lash grater then you expect...From here in the safety
of my home office I sit and I can't see the stars or buttons on any
uniform and am not impressed by the bureaucratic talk and expect better
>from  government representatives then what some have provided because of
their stated high rank and professional opinion which have the same
value as any other's posts or opinion at least to me and a few others I
am sure. If they were public servants in California I would demand
better and have it but we are not we are just beekeepers. The devil is
always in the details and those with the rank better know the details
and be able to express them so us lowly beekeepers can and do understand
them which does not happen with bureaucrat to bureaucrat making
revisions to regulations and public law without the "involved" consent
of the people at risk, including the lowly Hawaiian beekeepers.
"Involved" means more then a government form letter back acknowledging
the receiving of someone's comment.  It may be different in other
countries, but I am not so sure it is all that much better.

New Zealand is a wonderful place, has a wonderful system of government,
great public servants, good beekeepers, bees that they can be proud of,
but so has Hawaii, or California or Timbuktu and they too have every
right to try to protect and promote what they have. Maybe we don't have
the luxury of having slick government agents speaking out for us, and
maybe what we have to say is hard to follow because of our own short
falls in language skills or lack of high education or office, but we
will have our say the same as some have had their way with our own
bureaucrats.

BTW: NZ may be the only place in the world that blames any significant
part of their own AFB incidence on the residue of honey left over from
emptied import and consumer containers of honey, left in the trash, and
believes it...can prove it, and bee proud of it, at the same time they
would have us all believe that there is "no risk" to the bees of Hawaii
>from  NZ bees landing at Hawaii's international airport and some
unforeseen careless act which is no different then putting out the trash
containing sticky honey containers, something that many in the world of
beekeeping would consider a very minor regulatory and bee health problem
at the most...

I guess it depends a lot on who's ox is being gored but I suspect we
have not heard the end of this story which may come from the beekeepers
in Canada or the sleeping politicians in Washington, or some other place
in the end, God forbidding any New Zealand bees escaping from the
trash at Hawaii's airports.

                                ttul Andy-

(c) Permission is granted to freely copy this document
in any form, or to print for any use.

(w)Opinions are not necessarily facts. Use at own risk.

---
 þ QMPro 1.53 þ All bees are looking for bargains in nature's supermarket
---
 þ QMPro 1.53 þ ... As doth the meadow-bee,