Allen Dick said:

> exactly what areas *are* infected, or may be infected?

I think that it is safe to say that any effort to collect data
and maintain detailed maps dwindled out when the quarantines
ended.  This error has also been made in the US multiple times.

If cattle were dying due to invasive pests and diseases
at the same rate as hives are dying, the reaction would be
much more aggressive.  Just like Britain's response to the
2002 foot and mouth outbreak.  Martial law, in essence.

> How can we know?

We can't, so all anyone can do is to inspect imports from
everywhere.

> Who can we trust?

"Trust" is a counter-productive concept that can lead only to distrust.

We should operate independently of trust.  Robust checks and
balances are the only thing worthy of confidence.  A person one
"trusts" can be trusted to screw up now and again, so the trick is
to design an approach that expects even the "most respected" to
be fallible human beings.

> What distance ensures reaasonable safety from the pest?

The oceans are a good barrier.  Checking whatever crosses
the oceans is apparently left to each county where planes land
and ships dock.  Anything less is, uh, less.

> What is reasonable risk?

In the case of queens, "reasonable risk" would be removing the
imported workers at point of entry, replacing them with local
workers, and testing at least a statistically valid subset of the
workers.

In the case of packages, I'm not sure what scheme would pass
muster as "statistically valid", but one has to expect that people
who check shipments of bulk commodities know some approaches
that would work.

In the case of apiary bulk commodities, like honey, pollen, and wax,
one can "treat" without fear of killing something.  E-beam appears
to be the current state of the art.

> Without full disclosure and public knowledge of the facts,

Are you saying that this was known, but not disclosed?
That's a pretty serious allegation to make.  I'd prefer to think that
the first fellow who noticed was the one that you heard from.

I'm also not convinced that a "different" species or subspecies of
beetle makes much difference on a practical level.  From what
reports are available, the Austrailian small hive beetle is just as
bad as (and no worse than) the one found in the US, Egypt, and
South Africa.

> how can the industry be expected to give intelligent input to a decison
> that may have significant impact on beekeepers.

From what I've seen so far the "industry" is structurally incapable of
intelligent thought itself.

a)  Most of those with the expertise to grasp the technical issues have
     masters who restrict their participation in "public debate".

b)  Multiple groups claim to "represent" beekeepers, but none have even
     a coherent position statement on the "imports/pests/diseases" issue.

c)  Worse yet, these multiple groups do not coordinate their efforts when
     they thrash about on one issue or another.

This is not to say that individuals or groups are not capable of well-reasoned
and insightful thinking on a subject, but the ultimate comedy of fuzzy thinking
is that one could have listened to the same exact presentations from multiple
people at both of the US "national meetings", held a thousand miles apart, but
within days of each other.  I'm not saying that the two groups should even
consider merging, but think of the membership increases each would see if they
simply held their meetings in the same city each year scheduled so as to not overlap.

> Perhaps we can trust this to the Powers That Be, but maybe not.

WHAT "powers that be"?  Maybe Canada has an actual authority over such
issues, but down here in the USofA, the "powers that be" are apparently
powerless themselves.  WTO rules sacrifice concepts like "biosecurity"
for short-term profits for small groups of exporters, and limit its scope to
not only what is "known", but what can be proven to be a "significant pest".
The "powers that be", at least in the US, appear to feel honor bound to
follow the path "least restrictive to trade" unless directed otherwise by
elected officials.

> CFIA defends our borders against easy import of superior, mite and disease
> resistant bee stock from the USA at great cost to many in our industry and
> economy,

Which is the "critical" pest they fear?  SHB or AHB?  Can either survive an
Alberta fall, let alone a winter?  Where does actual science factor into the
decsion-making process?

> and at the same time has casually allowed a serious pest into Canada to
> satisfy a small business that makes only a minor contribution to
> our industry and economy.

If controls are going to be more strictly applied against a "small business that
makes only a minor contribution to our industry and economy", then beekeeping
as a whole is not going to get any consideration from anyone.

My point is that prohibiting imports of this or that from here or there based upon
one specific pest or disease or another does nothing to work towards an actual
solution.  Only rigorous port of entry testing protects against both the "known"
and the "unknown".

When the subject is beetles and mites, the "unknowns" outnumber the "knowns".

        jim