In article <[log in to unmask]>, Andy Nachbaur
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>
>Can I interest anyone who even half believes in the above in buying the
>Golden Gate Bridge?
>(c)Permission is given to copy this document
>in any form, or to print for any use.
>
>(w)OPINIONS are not necessarily facts. USE  AT OWN RISK!
Dear Andy,
 
Thank you for your response. I'm glad that at last I've got someone to
disagree with me. The universal tide of approving e-mails I have been
receiving was, although flattering, not a healthy sign, active debate
is!
 
The only point I was getting at was really the unfair press that certain
varroa treatments are getting, and to liken fluvalinate to any of the
other substances Garth mentioned was way over the top.
 
If it was remotely like them and the various warnings, instructions etc.
which accompany all agrochemichals nowadays did not alert the user to
this, and then any calamity happened despite the product being used as
directed, the legal consequences and liability damages would be severe.
I personally do not believe that the profit on sales to beekeepers is
sufficient to be worth the risk of the multi-million dollar law suit
(for that is what it would be) which would inevitably follow it being
demonstrated that they had knowingly sold a dangerous treatment and
concealed the fact, and then damage to individuals or their property
occurring as a result.
 
I have full product and public liability insurance for my products
coming into the USA and it is a complicated and expensive matter,
indeed, and, despite us having full worldwide cover, the USA part of
that accounts for two thirds of our overall cost. If it was pesticides
instead of foodstuffs I was selling I shudder to think what insurance
would cost and the amount of good scientific research I would need to
provide just to be allowed to sell my product even when fully, correctly
described, and with exhaustive directions for use. Insurers scrutinise
everything so that they know their risks.
 
I agree with healthy scepticism, and the provision of good quality,
independent, unbiased evidence is crucial in arriving at your own
decision. I cannot agree with AUTOMATIC rejection of any evidence
offered by the producer of the treatment: it is merely tainted, not
neccessarily invalid, and thus the support or otherwise of independent
research evidence is vital.
 
I don't advocate any particular treatment, and, especially after the
passing of the first wave, intend to use a mixed regime of
scientifically proven treatments. I will not use any quack remedies and
will not adopt non-treatment as a strategy, even in a single yard, as
all I would do would be give my neighbours a serious re-infestation
problem as my colonies collapse. Not a friendly thing to do to them!
 
Finally, I don't think you were very fair to Dr. Rodriguez in the
following paragraph:-
 
>"Will I ain't no Democrat myself and many of the readers here may not
>be the least bit interested in politics anyway and are as far as I
know, etc"
 
I feel he was just saying it was a free country and thus you are both
free to say what you like.
 
I certainly agree with you in one respect. Beekeepers are a very
independently minded bunch and any idea that some program of treatment
or registration or whatever could be imposed on everyone just won't
work.  Some will take up opposing points of view and will not comply for
a variety of reasons ranging from genuine practical objections, through
distrust of others motives, to just sheer cussedness. If I ever end up
in that last category please arrange to have me shot!
 
Kind regards,
 
 
Murray
 
--
Murray McGregor