>
> Dear Martin,  I am sorry that you feel threatend by my statements about the
> likelihood of parasite transmission in shipments of bees.  I already posted
> that arguments could be made to continue trade in bees.
>
> >Your above mentioned assertion, although apparently obvious and based on
> common sense, is far from being supported by strong scientific evidence.


Actually, there is plenty of evidence that bee parasites do not spread
across oceans unaided.

Is all your scientific evidence just based on the four pages (160 to 164) of
> the book entitled «Infectious Disease Ecology» that you found on Amazon?


i actually own the book, and merely referred to those four pages for those
who did not have the entire book at hand.


> >So you suggest the best way to avoid new pests and diseases is to stop the
> transportation of living organisms…?


Actually, that would indeed stop the introduction of new pests.


> >This Howard Hughes approach to preserve the health of honeybees will drive
> us to insanity as it did for him.


After the U.S. banned imports of bees in the 1920's, we were able to exclude
a number of pests for quite a few years, yet did not notice any increase in
the rate of insanity of U.S. beekeepers above the normal baseline.   Has it
done so in Argentina?

>
> >Maybe a future development of your recommendation could be to stop
> incoming migratory colonies from non-California states to accomplish almond
> pollination in California.


California beekeepers would love that!  If we had been able to do that in
the early 1960's we would likely still be free of chalkbrood, tracheal mite,
varroa, small hive beetle, Nosema ceranae, etc!  Unfortunately, the politics
of trade and profit prevailed, and we now suffer from all those introduced
diseases.


> >We human beings are all dangerous living organisms carrying unknown and
> lethal microorganisms, aren`t we?


Some of us more so than others.

>
> >Do you also have an epidemiological contingency plan to prevent or to
> eradicate the migration of swallows from California to Argentina?


I'm afraid that you are straying futher from the subject than the swallows
stray from Capistrano.  The swallows engage in a natural migration that has
been going on before there were humans or honeybees in California or
Argentina.  Humans alone carried honeybees, and later their parasites.


> >It looks as if your paradigm is a mythical state of purity enjoyed by
> honeybees in America


Hardly mythical--I personally enjoyed it for some time!  Neither would I
consider the West Australian beekeepers' freedom from EFB, tracheal mite, or
varroa a myth.  You can ask beekeepers there yourself.  They appeared to me
to be pretty grounded in reality.  And they have rather strict importation
protocols.

>started back in year 1622 with the
> first documented successful introduction of honeybees in North America and
> the consequent displacement of plenty of adapted native species of
> pollinators....We simply ignore how devastating its effect was on the feral
> population of the American aboriginal native pollinators.


Off topic again, but I've seen little data to support this contention.
However, I have seen data to the contrary.

>It is a miracle Varroa
> mites were not introduced over 100 years ago accidentally, through Benton
> efforts to import different races of honeybees.


Yes indeed.  But some beekeepers feel that we should not trust in miracles,
but rather proactively attempt to avoid the introduction of new pathogens.

>
> >I do not think that the ostrich approach of burying
> the head in the sand, is the best way to stop exotic diseases from entering
> into new territories.


I totally agree!  Can you suggest a better approach to stop exotic diseases
from entering?

>
> >You can access the O.IE. Terrestrial Animal Health Code which includes a
> specific chapter on bee diseases...O.I.E. has been recognized as the
> international standard setting body for animal diseases.


Allow me to quote from the document.  The following paragraph is for varroa,
but  is similar to that for other parasites:
"A country [that has a varroa eradication programme] may be considered free
from varroosis after conducting a *risk
assessment*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_appreciation_du_risque>...and
when:
for the 3 years following the last reported
*case*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_cas>of
varroosis, an annual survey supervised by the
*Veterinary Authority*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_autorite_veterinaire>,
with negative results, have been carried out on a representative sample of *
apiaries*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_rucher>in
the country or
*zone*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_zone_region>
/*compartment*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_compartiment>(under
study) to provide a confidence level of at least 95% of detecting
varroosis if at least 1% of the
*apiaries*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_rucher>were
infected at a within-
*apiary*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_rucher>prevalence
rate of at least 5% of the hives; such surveys may be targeted
towards areas with a higher likelihood of
*disease*<http://www.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.9.6.htm#terme_maladie>
;"

I don't know about you, Martin, but if I were an Australian, I wouldn't be
very comfortable if the government allowed the import of bees from an area
that inspected at the 95% confidence level of finding varroa if 5% of the
hives were infected.  I'm not sure that the document that you cited helps
beekeepers to feel protected enough to sleep soundly.

>
> >Like it or not, agree or disagree we have some ways to mitigate and reduce
> the impact of animal diseases.


Like the way we mitigate the impact of varroa?  How do you suggest that we
mitigate the impact of Tropilaelaps?


> >I am afraid that we do not have 100% certainty but a high probability to
> avoid their accidental introduction.  However, limiting the movement of
> animals is not a realistic approach.


Actually, it has worked quite well in reality.  I would suggest that that
fact indicates that it is indeed a realistic approach.

Martin, I realize that your income depends upon shipping bees to other
countries.  The income of all beekeepers in my country depends upon having
healthy bees.  When those two goals are at odds, the benefit to the many may
outweigh the profit of the few.

Randy Oliver

*******************************************************
* Search the BEE-L archives at:                       *
* http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?S1=bee-l *
*******************************************************