> If there are no right or wrong answers then why bother?
> Take careful measurements for the experiment? Why bother?
> You will not get a "right" answer.

I think you purposely missed my point and set up a straw man in order to keep
this going. You know I'm *not* saying that there are no truths, I am just saying
that a fascist one-size-fits-all approach won't cut it any more.  People are
better informed these days and know their rights. They are more aware of the
subtleties of these problems and won't be abused.  Moreover problems will simply
not stay localized; they are constantly and rapidly spread around entire
continents.

I keep reading simplistic rants about AFB.  If wishes were horses, then beggars
could ride.  Wishing and hoping and making rhetorical statements will not change
reality.  Each problem is a bit different with a different environment -- in all
the meanings of that word.

> Same with the TM issue? Detect AFB burn the hives.

What are the criteria?  Having one spore?  Having one cell?  Being found at or
near the scene of the crime?  Being suspected of witchcraft?

Mites changed our understanding of bee diseases and pests and made us begin to
realise that there is no way to prove zero levels exist in a population.  On the
contrary, we learned IPM concepts and the idea that we have to assume we have
the problem, sample, measure and evaluate whether the problem is currently well
below or near set thresholds, and then decide what level of response -- if
any -- is indicated in consideration of our current economic environment.
Moreover, modern transport and its tendency to distribute both bees and honey
around the country has increased the likelihood of our local problem measurement
information going out of date quickly.

In the not-too-distant past, we thought in terms of black and white, yes or no,
good and bad.  Now we are thinking in terms of probabilities, trends, burdens,
opportunities, and environments.   Not everyone likes this measured and
constantly morphing approach.  Many wish for the days when the good guys were
good, the bad guys were bad and could be relied on to stay that way.  Problems
could be solved with a single bullet from a lawman's gun.  Nowadays, setting up
an AFB lynch mob -- or even legal executioner -- will not work most places I
know of.

> Sounds good until you get a 10% infection rate. After reading Allen's diary
> every day solid for the last few months I doubt his operation could have
> withstood a 3% infection rate.

Not sure what you are saying.  We used to have about a 3% annual AFB rate not
too long ago.  That is pretty normal for many outfits that are quite viable.
Zero is obviously best, though that state can never be proven.

>I agree with George's advice that burning is
> best on one front but sometimes what is best for the forest is not good for
> individual trees. If we ignore the needs of enough trees then we don't have
> much of a forest anymore.

We agree about this.  Curing the disease should not also kill the patient.

> There is a right answer to all of this. One best solution. I am just not
> sure anyone knows what that is. I hope that between science and skill we
> find it.

>From what I can recall about mathematics and also nature, it is often unnatural
to have only one solution, and when there are several, the best one is often a
moving target.  FWIW, I doubt there are fewer than 1,000 good solutions to this
particular set of problems.  When we discard the uneconomical and unknowable
ones, and politically impossible ones then we are left with a set of tools that
can be used to approach the goal.

> "One of the best examples of pure democracy in action is the lynch mob"

I can't figure out if you are celebrating this -- or warning us about it.

allen