I have read the latest communication about the Hawaiian issue, and
followed with interest the dialoque between Allen Dick and Andy.
Notwithstanding the cynical attitudes and economic opportunism that may
be part of the issue, perhaps it is better to focus on the question of
diseases and pests associated with New Zealand honeybees. Also, it is
necessary to seperate the issue of transshipments of NZ bees through
Hawaii, from the larger issue of the US allowing importation of NZ bees.
1. From a geographical perspective, it makes perfect sense for the
Hawaiian industry to demand a ban on all importations, including
transshipments. When we closely examine the details of transshipments
and assess the risks, many of the fears may be unfounded. Transshipments
only go through Honolulu, O'ahu, where they stay for a few hours before
loaded up for a flight to Vancouver, BC. The shipments must meet airline
standards of bee-tightness, etc. Surely, we are not talking about piles
of bees 'bleeding' from those containers. If these containers are left in
open areas, it is more likely that the bees buzzing around on the outside
are genuine Hawaiian that have been attracted. In terms of shipping
conditions and the short time frame during which these bees stay at the
Honolulu airport, risks are extremely low.
2. As far as I know, the commercial Hawaiian beekeeping industry and the
bee breeders in particular, are concentrated on the big island of Hawaii,
over 100 nautical miles from O'ahu. Unless there is free movement of
bees among the islands (by man), there is no chance of bees reaching
Hawaii on their own. In other words, the risks of the current Hawaiian
commercial bee stock exposed to transshipped New Zealand beestock is
negligible.
3. There is this impressive list of pathogens reported present in New
Zealand, as stated by Bailey & Ball. I have no cause to doubt the
accuracy of these claims but the problem is that this valuable research
was done in New Zealand and not in North America and Hawaii. The listing
of these agents have been used in this discussion as if they are unique
to New Zealand and extraordinarily virulent. This is simply not the
case. Most are of academic interest and have only been reported
incidentally. Part of the reason that they have been reported
incidentally is because these agents are generally latent. It is wrong
to insinuate that any of these agents would upon introduction, cause
havoc to American beekeeping. (However, I acknowledge that in company of
parasitic mites, some viral agents may become virulent in the future.)
In my view, the weakness of Hawaii's arguments rest in the fact that
no comparable scientific research has ever been applied to the Hawaiian
and north American bee populations. There is simply not an accurate
inventory listing of agents associated with american bees. Any or all
(and perhaps more) of those agents listed by Bailey & Ball could already
occur in the feral and managed bee population of Hawaii and North
America.
As long as there is no accurate listing of honeybee pathogens in Hawaii
and North America, I believe it is wrong in portraying New Zealand as a
dangerous source of bee stock because it is not. I am not wishing to
talk on behalf of New Zealand in any way, but I and others have full
confidence in the health status and reliability of NEw Zealand bees.
This position is based on information and experience gathered over 15
years since Canada started importing bees from New Zealand.
Canada assessed New Zealand (and Australia) as a source of bees in the
early 1980's. Ever since the initial assessment, Canada has been
satisfied and impressed with the thorough and sound animal disease and
pest control programs in place in New Zealand and Australia.
In the mid-1980's, when Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) had been reported, BC
sent bee samples to NZ for analysis (by Anderson, who since then moved to
Australia). Indeed, KBV was identified in samples of BC bees but also
from sources that had never been exposed to NZ bee importations.
Eventhough, no further studies were carried out, it was suspected that
bees in many parts of Canada (and presumably the US) already harbored KBV
and other viral agents. For the lack of funds and expertise in bee
virology, a comprehensive survey of North America was never carried out.
Shimanuki and others have stated that it is likely some or many viruses
are widely distributed in the north American bee population. With the
recent entry of Africanized bees, additional viruses may be introduced
into North America as well.
Because of Hawaii's longstanding importation ban, and its opportunity to
remain free of parasitic mites, I can appreciate the demand for some form
of protection. As I wrote in ABJ's january 1995 edition, the strength of
arguments in support of protection must be based on scientific evidence
together with risk assessment studies. For the lack of information of
Hawaii's inventory of bee pathogens, it is difficult to consider NZ
transshipments as a bonafide health risk to Hawaiian bees at this time.
To resolve the issue, a comprehensive survey may be carried out in
Hawaii. The results can then be compared with the New Zealand list.
Considering the scientific information currently available, I find it
difficult to accept the argument that New Zealand bees pose a health risk
to the North American bee population. But then, I do agree that perhaps
New Zealand may pose an 'economic risk' to some American bee suppliers.
Paul van Westendorp
Provincial Apiarist
British Columbia
|