BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Andy Nachbaur <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Nov 1998 15:26:35 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (63 lines)
At 09:52 PM 11/27/98 +1300, you wrote:
 
>"KILL A BEEKEEPER PROGRAMS"
 
>The US likes to play both sides of this particular fence.  It applies
>restrictions to protect the bee health of the US when it chooses, but
>beekeepers like Andy would not have other countries attempt to do the
>same.  No one has ever said that "free trade" and "fair trade" mean
>the same as "totally unrestricted" trade.
 
Hi Nick, and Interested Beekeepers,
 
Not true, I Bee Emperor Andy, if elected, would lift all government
restrictions on honeybee queen bees including genetic material and allow
beekeepers to search out the best new stock for their own area.. Today in
the US we are doing that in a small inefficient way but we do not get to
pick our own stock and those who do chose the stock are not part of
production agriculture but regulators and bee scientists and have yet to
find one worthwhile new stock of bees. BTW.. They are not looking in NZ or
the Pacific Rim for new stock we can get that from Canada now.
 
As for the landing rights at Hawaii, this was an economic thing, NZ was
trying to cheapen the cost of their bees and without regards to the risk to
their main competitor for queens in Canada, Hawaii, a pacific island
without main land or NZ bee health problems, and other alternatives were
available and in use. Todays US beekeepers are not good politicians and
were sold out on this issue by their own government bureaucrats.
 
The only other restriction was on China for selling honey a values less
then what it would bring in China. A temporary import quota was established
as a penalty which was subverted by Canadian interests who imported
millions of pounds of Chinese honey and transhipped it to the US as
Canadian honey or a blend of Canadian honey. The case against China cost US
beekeepers hundreds of thousands in cash money for trade lawyers and it was
made into a wasted effort by a few in Canada and their government and a
jaundice US government regulatory system. If it were not for our CIA we
would know nothing about the fate of those at least in the Chinese honey
export business in Canada and they are reported to be out of business today
but then there is no profit in importing honey into Canada to export it to
the US today also. If this had not happened I believe the US and Canada in
honey price today would be 25% higher then it is which is a weak or
declining market or NO market at all, so Canadian and other export honey
producers are paying a price to have let this deception to go on.
 
As far as I know NO new US bee laws pertaining to the importation of bees
have been made since the original ones in the early part of the century and
if anything they have been relaxed by regulation allowing new importations
as above.
 
I do know the difference between "free" and "fair" trade but can not say
what part of all the above which all have more to do with "restricted"
trade is FAIR...to any beekeepers the world around. IMHO
 
ttul, Andy-
http://beenet.com
Left Coast of the Republic of America
 
 
(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!

ATOM RSS1 RSS2