Blane White said:
> Interesting Jerry since some MN hygienic queens were shipped from
> the University of MN to France last late summer/fall.
Wouldn't the current US/France situation (getting very close to that golden
oldie, "Omnis Gallia delenda est ") tend to make such exports more difficult
on the US end?
Come to think of it, bees are "weapons of mass production". Why would the US
allow exports of "high-tech" bees at all? What with everything from roses to seeds
being patented, why are new lines of bees not being viewed as agricultural technology
worthy of treatment as "intellectual property", perhaps even "strategic assets"?
Jerry said:
> So far, it seems that despite the sweeping statement that I found, queens
> may be allowed into these countries from the U.S. and other areas, with
> appropriate inspections, certificates, etc.
> However, so far no one has told me that the U.K. or EU will accept packages
> (swarms, colonies) of bees from the U.S. Only queens.
And the UK has a very well-thought out port-of-entry inspection program
for all imported queens, one that should be a model for everyone else.
I'm not sure anyone has a robust program that would address packages,
and I still await enlightenment from anyone with a promising port-of-entry
testing approach.
But the punch line (and there is always a punch-line) can be found here:
http://www.bee-craft.com/advertising_rates.htm
"Bee Craft Ltd [The UK's major magazine for beekeepers] follows the
policy set down by the British Beekeepers Association and does not
accept advertisements for Queens, nuclei stocks or package bees
bred outside the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland."
They also require each advertiser of bees to sign a declaration confirming
compliance with the policy. No US publication could ever take such a stance,
since it would result in instant "restraint of trade" lawsuits, and perhaps even
claims of (all together now, in harmony, please) "non-technical barriers to trade".
But I'm not surprised that the same authorities who would prohibit or frustrate
the importation of bees in most cases would make exceptions for the latest
developments in queen-breeding R&D.
If US institutions can be conned into sending abroad the final products of difficult,
expensive, and time-consuming work at no charge or minimal charge, who
WOULDN'T want some of those bees?
The following may ruffle some feathers, but I hope we can keep discussion of this
issue hypothetical rather than antithetical.
Why do US taxpayer-funded institutions send "technology" to countries who return the
favor by using that technology (those bees) to:
a) Compete with US honey producers, in both international markets and in the US itself
b) Develop highly similar lines of "production" queens rather than buying US bees
c) While holding positions that only speed the downward spiral of US beekeeping
All US beekeepers pay taxes to fund the research that created the desirable bees.
Some even make donations to research funds on top of their taxes. Do any of these
countries that want advanced bees ever contribute funding that helps to do the research
work and field testing? Does anyone realize that there is still a (small) chance that all but
a handful of bee researchers and scientists in the employ of the USDA will not even have
jobs next fiscal quarter?
The current high honey prices were, in part, created at the expense of the Chinese honey
exporters, and while I do not like to think of anything as a "zero-sum game" with a looser
for every winner, I am sure that US beekeepers would agree that legislation to restrict
exports of US beekeeping "technology" would be a cheaper and more elegant solution
to competition from low-wage countries than yet another "anti-dumping suit".
Just about the only effective way to compete with low-wage competitors is to develop
and use technology that reduces the labor component of one's own product.
Disease and mite resistant bees directly result in lower costs per pound of honey.
...and back on Feb 7th 2003, Allen Dick said:
> As it happens, CFIA is the very regulatory agency that bans Canadian
> beekeepers from obtaining imports of US queens -- including the very bee
> strain (Russian) that promises to reduce our concern about mites. Fear
> of mites are the reason we closed the border. Go figure.
> The import of US Primorsky queens in volume would reduce or eliminate
> our need to use miticide chemicals (which CFIA also tests for). We
> cannot (legally) buy US queens even under proposed extremely rigid
> protocols, and even from regions of the US that are not known or
> suspected to have any of the usual pest suspects.
> This total ban on legitimate, inspected queen imports has -- naturally
> enough -- led to smuggling.
There's a good example... Canada would be well served by treating bees in
the same manner they treat potential immigrants, within minimum standards
for "immigration" that only allow "desirables" in. But would anyone in the US
be dumb enough to willingly offer Canada even a single Primorsky queen without
a prerequisite that Canada drop or extensively modify what is rapidly becoming
a less and less defendable stance on imports of US queens and packages in general?
And what kind of a person sells 100 queens to a smuggler when respecting
Canadian law would force the issue, and would allow the same person to sell
perhaps 1,000 queens with a clear conscience?
And would there even be a significant live bee export/import "market" if not
for Canada?
jim
Ice storm in Virginia (!!) The battery banks are 100%,
and the generator has a fancy new 1/2 cycle cut-in
relay, but I still got an oil lamp out of the pantry... :)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
BEE-L has no "Frequently Asked Questions",
but any topic can be reviewed by searching
the archives. The archives are the FAQ!
BEE-L archives can be searched at:
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
