I have read the latest communication about the Hawaiian issue, and
    followed with interest the dialoque between Allen Dick and Andy.
 
    Notwithstanding the cynical attitudes and economic opportunism that may
    be part of the issue, perhaps it is better to focus on the question of
    diseases and pests associated with New Zealand honeybees.  Also, it is
    necessary to seperate the issue of transshipments of NZ bees through
    Hawaii, from the larger issue of the US allowing importation of NZ bees.
 
 
    1.  From a geographical perspective, it makes perfect sense for the
    Hawaiian industry to demand a ban on all importations, including
    transshipments.  When we closely examine the details of transshipments
    and assess the risks, many of the fears may be unfounded.  Transshipments
    only go through Honolulu, O'ahu, where they stay for a few hours before
    loaded up for a flight to Vancouver, BC.  The shipments must meet airline
    standards of bee-tightness, etc.  Surely, we are not talking about piles
    of bees 'bleeding' from those containers. If these containers are left in
    open areas, it is more likely that the bees buzzing around on the outside
    are genuine Hawaiian that have been attracted.  In terms of shipping
    conditions and the short time frame during which these bees stay at the
    Honolulu airport, risks are extremely low.
 
    2.  As far as I know, the commercial Hawaiian beekeeping industry and the
    bee breeders in particular, are concentrated on the big island of Hawaii,
    over 100 nautical miles from O'ahu.  Unless there is free movement of
    bees among the islands (by man), there is no chance of bees reaching
    Hawaii on their own.  In other words, the risks of the current Hawaiian
    commercial bee stock exposed to transshipped New Zealand beestock is
    negligible.
 
    3.  There is this impressive list of pathogens reported present in New
    Zealand, as stated by Bailey & Ball.  I have no cause to doubt the
    accuracy of these claims but the problem is that this valuable research
    was done in New Zealand and not in North America and Hawaii.  The listing
    of these agents have been used in this discussion as if they are unique
    to New Zealand and extraordinarily virulent.  This is simply not the
    case.  Most are of academic interest and have only been reported
    incidentally.  Part of the reason that they have been reported
    incidentally is because these agents are generally latent.  It is wrong
    to insinuate that any of these agents would upon introduction, cause
    havoc to American beekeeping.  (However, I acknowledge that in company of
    parasitic mites, some viral agents may become virulent in the future.)
 
    In my view, the weakness of Hawaii's arguments rest in the fact that
    no comparable scientific research has ever been applied to the Hawaiian
    and north American bee populations.  There is simply not an accurate
    inventory listing of agents associated with american bees.  Any or all
    (and perhaps more) of those agents listed by Bailey & Ball could already
    occur in the feral and managed bee population of Hawaii and North
    America.
 
    As long as there is no accurate listing of honeybee pathogens in Hawaii
    and North America, I believe it is wrong in portraying New Zealand as a
    dangerous source of bee stock because it is not.   I am not wishing to
    talk on behalf of New Zealand in any way, but I and others have full
    confidence in the health status and reliability of NEw Zealand bees.
    This position is based on information and experience gathered over 15
    years since Canada started importing bees from New Zealand.
 
    Canada assessed New Zealand (and Australia) as a source of bees in the
    early 1980's.  Ever since the initial assessment, Canada has been
    satisfied and impressed with the thorough and sound animal disease and
    pest control programs in place in New Zealand and Australia.
 
    In the mid-1980's, when Kashmir Bee Virus (KBV) had been reported, BC
    sent bee samples to NZ for analysis (by Anderson, who since then moved to
    Australia).  Indeed, KBV was identified in samples of BC bees but also
    from sources that had never been exposed to NZ bee importations.
    Eventhough, no further studies were carried out, it was suspected that
    bees in many parts of Canada (and presumably the US) already harbored KBV
    and other viral agents.  For the lack of funds and expertise in bee
    virology, a comprehensive survey of North America was never carried out.
    Shimanuki and others have stated that it is likely some or many viruses
    are widely distributed in the north American bee population.  With the
    recent entry of Africanized bees, additional viruses may be introduced
    into North America as well.
 
    Because of Hawaii's longstanding importation ban, and its opportunity to
    remain free of parasitic mites, I can appreciate the demand for some form
    of protection.  As I wrote in ABJ's january 1995 edition, the strength of
    arguments in support of protection must be based on scientific evidence
    together with risk assessment studies.  For the lack of information of
    Hawaii's inventory of bee pathogens, it is difficult to consider NZ
    transshipments as a bonafide health risk to Hawaiian bees at this time.
    To resolve the issue, a comprehensive survey may be carried out in
    Hawaii.  The results can then be compared with the New Zealand list.
 
    Considering the scientific information currently available, I find it
    difficult to accept the argument that New Zealand bees pose a health risk
    to the North American bee population.   But then, I do agree that perhaps
    New Zealand may pose an 'economic risk' to some American bee suppliers.
 
 
    Paul van Westendorp
    Provincial Apiarist
    British Columbia