> 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.

True,  but at some point everyone has to trust someone.  I doubt that I
can do *everything* myself  I'm wondering if we can trust our own
people -- who are supposed to be doing just what you suggest. .

>> 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.

Now, I don't quite follow.  We are talking about SHB.  Do SHB, or their
eggs, somehow ride on bees?

> 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.

Apparently aduly SHB are quite comfortable in a cluster of bees and not
all obvious to people looking at the cluster.  We're talking about
importing thousands of clusters of bees.

>> 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.

The response from Australians to the question came overnight.  I don't
know if Canadian and US people knew previously or not.  I didn't and
I've been listening (sorta).

> 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.

Neither am I.  Apparently (going by hearsay) the Aus version is killed
by freezing.  I wonder if importing more beetle stock would increase the
viability of the beetle by increasing genetic diversity if they meet up
somewhere.  I presume the current beetles in the US must be quite
inbred?

Can we say, "Okay bring in a new beetle; it doesn't look too nasty"?  We
know they make a mess and complicate mangement in beekeeping. So far we
don't know about other enterprises except, maybe, wax rendering.

>> 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?

Why are you asking me? Or is that one of those there reeetorical
questions I'd be  fool to try to answer when they can't?   Not
convincingly, anyhow.  Especially when thery are now setting up to bring
in the beetle from Aus.

> 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".

The only possible port of entry testing I know of in this instance would
be destructive testing.

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

Amen.

BTW, your name was mentioned most favourably at the ABF.

allen
http://www.honeybeeworld.com/diary/