Dave said:
> While the maps can give some clues, they cannot be
> simplistically interpreted.
I'd prefer that we use the phrase "directly interpreted"
rather than the more argumentative phrase "simplistically
interpreted". Even then, I'm not sure what "reading between
the lines" is required.
Given all the field work that went into the maps, the multi-year
dataset that supports the maps, the clear definitions of each color
(you can click on the legend on any state map to see the formal
definitions), and the efforts of the large number of skilled
professionals that went into doing the surveys, I'd like to know
what they missed, and what additional "interpretation" might be required.
> 1. Inspectors may not be looking. Or may not recognize
> the beetle when they see it.
I am sure that all inspectors, and most beekeepers have seen either
photos or a preserved SHB specimen by now.
But even if (1) above were true, this would mean that detection would
merely be delayed until SHB takes over a few colonies somewhere.
That does not take very long. The result would simply be a "lag" in
reporting, not a change in the overall pattern of spread. Given the unique
pattern we have, where infested areas are isolated from each other, often
by hundreds of miles, clearly refutes argument (1). The inspectors DO find
SHB in specific areas, and DO NOT find SHB in the areas that surround the
infested site. Same inspectors. Same techniques.
> This is, of course not the case with the South Carolina counties.
If not the case in South Carolina, why would it be the case elsewhere?
Is South Carolina blessed with more bees inspectors than other states?
Better bee inspectors than other states? Superior detection methodology?
> 2. Inspectors may not WANT to see them. (OK cheap shot, and
> unlikely most places.)
Not only (very!) cheap and (highly!) unlikely, it is claiming that
people are not motivated or skilled enough to do their jobs.
I'm going to pretend the point above was never offered.
> 3. Beetles may be present but not thriving. This is the biggie in
> many areas. You can find an occasional beetle, but rarely see
> them, unless you are specifically focusing on their hiding spots.
See (1) above. The same refutation applies to both (1) and (3).
> Some geographical factor (perhaps soil type) limits their
> population.
Nope, "soil type" has been considered. SHB seems to like everything
from the rich loams of Ohio to the sandy soils of the coastlines.
> 4. Presence of source of high pressure. You know that when you
> lose a hive that is eaten out by wax worms, the remaining hives will
> have a lot of moths trying to lay eggs. Hives that can drive out an
> occasional moth, may not be able to stop every one when
> thousands are trying to get in. Same for beetles. One badly
> infested hive that collapses can throw off a LOT of beetles to go
> after others in the area. And beekeepers have learned NEVER to
> put a super of honey from a beetle-attacked hive onto a strong hive
> to "clean it up" as you might do with a beginning attack by wax
> moths. It simply overwhelms them. This is why someone who
> doesn't know what he's doing can spread a lot lot of beetles. Yeah,
> even the guy with two hives....
I think you have it backwards. The guys with "two hives" can (and do!)
"inspect" 100% of their hives more often than many might consider prudent.
(There is a point at which "regular inspection" becomes "harassment".)
The more hives a beekeeper has, the LESS often any specific hive can be
inspected, and the longer SHB can go undetected. Same for hobbyist storage
and extraction areas, as these areas are most often NOT dedicated solely
to beekeeping, and must be cleaned up promptly when honey harvesting is over.
> 5. Many more variables. Why does one hobby beekeeper near the
> farmers market tell me the "beetles are eating him up," while others
> in the area regard them as a minor problem?
The specifics of any SHB infestation near a farmer's market should be pointed
out to one's state apiarist, as this would be a new and perhaps interesting
finding. Regardless, if the primary carrier of SHB were produce trucks, SHB
would be much much more widely spread than it is.
> Why does the population get high one year and virtually disappear the
> next?
I dunno. I'm a physicist, not a coleopterist.
Maybe someone else can answer this one.
> A friend of mine had the beetles for three years...
> He seems to be in an area where the beetles thrive. He has NO
> migratories in his area. But the beetles freely fly from one
> apiary to another.
The fact that an "area" has multiple beekeepers with SHB infestations does
not imply that the SHB are "flying" between apiaries. In fact, just about
every official description of SHB includes the phrase "The beetles are spread
mainly via movement of beetle-infested colonies." Some descriptions also note
the much smaller number of cases traced to SHB-infested packages from bee
breeders.
Bottom line, if "flying SHB" or swarming were the primary cause of the spread
of SHB, we would not have maps showing large uninfested areas between the
small areas where outbreaks have been found.
> your insistance on such simplistic interpretation
Again, the term "simplistic" appears. How is noting where SHB has and has not
been detected by skilled professionals over a period of years "simplistic"?
What "more sophisticated" analysis would one prefer?
> of questionable maps
And just how are the maps "questionable"? They are the work product of the best
and brightest available. The fact that many isolated outbreaks have been found
and "controlled" BEFORE they got out of hand supports the stance that these
folks
are on their toes, and know what to look for.
> gives me the strong impression that your conclusion was made before
> you saw the data, and continues to be made despite additional data....
I'll be charitable, and also ignore the above.
I also await any actual data that might shed more light on the situation.
(Note I said "data" and not "wishful thinking".) The points offered above
are mere argument and speculation, and are easily refuted by the clear and
compelling evidence at hand.
Nothing would make me happier than to find out that SHB is not spread by
beekeepers, but as it is, it seems clear that we have no one to blame but
ourselves.
> I know a lot of hobby beekeepers and a lot of commercial
> beekeepers. While I respect and enjoy relationships with both, I
> find the commercial guys (the awful migratories) to be much more
> careful about diseases and parasites than the average hobbyist.
I agree. I also have the highest respect for doctors, but this does not lessen
the risk of contracting an antibiotic-resistant staph infection at a hospital,
something that simply does not happen outside of a hospital.
> Let's dispense with the the seemingly built-in bias against a group
> that simply is trying to do what we all love to do - keep bees.
Claiming "bias" is a >>>VERY<<< serious accusation.
Such an accusation should be clearly proven, or withdrawn publicly.
A clearly-explained rational analysis of the public record, presented in plain
English cannot be labeled "biased" merely because one does not like the
conclusions.
I CONTINUE to await any actual hard data that might shed more light on the
situation, but until then, I'm going to pay attention to what hard data we have.
I CONTINUE to challenge the group to explain the evidence at hand with a
proximate cause OTHER than the long-distance movement of live bees in the
form of infested hives or packages.
And I reject each of the following unsupported claims as meritless:
a) That the interpretation is "simplistic".
b) That the maps are "questionable".
c) That the inspectors are lazy or incompetent.
d) That I am "biased".
While it might be possible for any one of these items to be true, it would
be highly unlikely for all 4 to be true at the same time.
jim
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
