This is in response to the Beta of the latest APIS, received this AM from
APIS-L:
 
Again Tom has produced an excellent issue.  APIS is definitely one of the
most timely, objective and relevant commentaries available about current
events and thought in North America on matters relating to honeybees.
 
The quote from Apis included at the end of this article regarding US bee
stock import law, shows how far out of touch with reality the regulations
(and some regulators) can be.
 
To me, attempts to regulate importation of bees into the continental US
have to be considered in terms of the natural facts.  Resources and
regulations should be reserved for areas where they have some
chance of accomplishing some obvious good, and not squandered on
retrograde actions that impede trade and scientific advancement.  I
realise that big things have happened recently, but closing the barn door
is a bit late now.  The horse is gone.
 
There is likely some need for controlling honeybee travel across
international borders, however, the minimum necessary to provide *certain*
benefits is all that can be honestly justified. We must also remember that
national boundaries are largely artificial and hard to maintain unless
thet coincide with natural features that impede easy travel.
 
Honeybees do and will continue to routinely cross the US/Canada border at
many points -- without the aid of man.  The US Canada border is
invisible at many points.  Once into the USA, this stock intermingles with
US bees along the border, and come Fall, is whisked away to California or
Florida, or someplace warm where it is placed right beside bees that will
soon travel to virtually all other places in the United States that can be
reached by road, as well as stock that will be providing packages for
places like Alaska.
 
Of course this international border crossing happens in reverse; however,
once into Canada, the spread of honeybee stock and pests is very
different, since migratory beekeeping is much less common.  In areas where
moving bees considerable distances is routinely practiced, like British
Columbia, the spread of bees and both mites has been rapid.  In other
areas, spread of stock and pests has been *much* slower, particularly
since people are aware of the dangers of moving bees.
 
It is evident that all of Canada will, before too long, have all the bee
pests that are present in the USA, but because of different practices and
the cold climate which is hostile to unhealthy bees, spread of disease
and pests typically is over a decade or two, rather than the several year
period that appears typical in the USA.
 
Canadian beekeepers are monitoring the current spread of mites in Canada
from the border areas, and are for the most part anxious to resume trade
with the US in bees as soon as the mites become as prevalent and
widespread in Canada as in the US -- and assuming nothing new comes into
the picture.  This moment is increasingly imminent; it is becoming a
judgement call when that condition will ocur.
 
Of course, there always concerns about international trade, and some few
Canadian beekeepers are firmly protectionist, but strong movements are
underfoot in Canada to examine all the implications of free trade and to
ensure that two way trade across the US border resumes as quickly as can
be arranged, to the benefit of *both* parties. In anticipation of coming
changes, the Alberta Beekeepers Association is working proactively to
uncover and untangle all the various rules and regulations related to
re-opening the border to import of US commercial shipments and to
understand what it will eventually mean in terms of opportunities gained,
and advantages given up-- for both parties.  Alberta is a small portion of
Canada's landmass, however, it produces about a third of all Canadian
honey.
 
Although there are sometimes strong justifications for regulating
international borders, there are huge costs involved, both in terms of
actual monitoring and enforcement, and in terms of lost opportunities and
profits. Regulations that attempt to control or prevent importation of
Canadian (and possibly Mexican) stock into the continental US, seem to me
to be somewhat antique and quixotic -- like spitting into the wind.  I
think that limited resources and efforts are better directed into
developing solutions to the pests than arranging draconian measures to
attempt to prevent the inevitable.
 
That notwithstanding, strong regulations to protect Hawaii and some other
isolated areas do make sense.  Controls have a chance of working for a
while, and the economic advantage of having protected areas is hugely
beneficial; nonetheless it is only a matter of time until these regions
too are infected, modern travel being what it is.
 
As far as Mexican imports are concerned, the issue is somewhat different
from those of Canada, since Mexico has tropical areas and shares
land borders with other, less regulated countries. However, I understand
that honeybees do naturally come and go across the Rio Grande and other
US/Mexico border areas where bees are kept on both sides, so there is
obviously no way to prevent importing Mexican bees into the US.
 
I imagine there could be some risk in importing from far south of
Mexico,  particularly if the Mexicans or their southern neighbours are not
careful about what they import, and from where.  Perhaps a path more
rewarding than attempting to prevent importation of Mexican bees would be
for the USA to assist (and possibly pressure) neighbours to tighten their
import regulations where introduction of entirely new and potentially
destructive pests is a risk.  For the record, several decades ago,
Canadians imported package bees on a commercial scale from Mexico.
 
I think that the essential issue comes down to bees and *beekeepers*
crossing the borders *together*, not importation of small scientific
samples from  contiguous countries.
 
If two way travel of bees on commercial scale throughout the entirety of
North America becomes the norm, as I am sure some day it inevitably will,
we will see far faster spread of any pests or new bee strains throughout
all of North America.  This danger will be accompanied by some economic
advantages and the question will be which will dominate: the gains, or the
perceived potential costs; I have no doubt that the former will.
 
As a final note: As far as Australia and New Zealand stocks are concerned,
the US has no reason to ban them.  These countries are extremely careful
about what they import and are isolated from pests due to geography.
Moreover, during the past decade or so, hundreds of thousands of packages
from those two countries have flooded Canada.  Subsequently, some have
legally moved in truckloads, I am sure, south across the border into the
USA and joined the mix. There is much reason to be concerned about other
parts of the world: some are safe, but many harbour serious pests.
 
In conclusion: In our attempts to protect ourselves from potential
threats, we incur certain and measureable costs, both in human resources
and financial expense, as well as loss of benefits and profits.  Careful
evaluation of the cost/benefit ratio is required to ensure that time and
money is not wasted on an idealistic cause that is too expensive,
frustrating to the industry being regulated, and doomed to failure from
the start.
 
---
Quote form APIS:
 
> Dr. Eric Mussen, in his latest newsletter, From the UC Apiaries, provides
> a discussion of changes in the offing for the honey bee importation law,
> originally passed in 1922. The current act, according to Dr. Mussen, is
> basically a prohibition to import anything involving live bees and
> reproductive products into the United States. USDA researchers and their
> cooperators were the only possible exceptions.
<snip>
> The new look at the 1922 bee law (under the Federal Advisory Committee
> Act) will involve formulation of a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) that
> would decide who is allowed to import what from where. This still would
> allow "research" imports, Dr. Mussen says, but exotic queen and/or semen
> importations would have to arrive through an approved quarantine
> facility, be reared under close scrutiny, then released following review
> of data by the TAG.
<snip>
> Commercial stock importations from the previously mentioned countries,
> plus Canada and Mexico, would be allowed through a permitting system.
> Using the FAO guidelines (Risk Assessment Process), if no health threat
> is perceived, and the importer adequately justifies the need for
> importation, the permit would be issued.
 
Allen Dick                                  VE6CFK
Rural Route One, Swalwell, Alberta  Canada T0M 1Y0
     [log in to unmask] & [log in to unmask]
       http://www.internode.net/HoneyBee/