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:
"Paul van Westendorp of AGF 576-5600 Fax: 576-5652" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 29 Mar 1996 10:31:14 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
    Re. Kashmir Bee Virus - Walter Patton
 
    Walter, I do not understand that when the discussion about Kashmir Bee
    Virus is presented by others in a reasoned and well-articulated manner
    but not to your liking, you chose to respond by criticizing and
    questioning the integrity of others.
 
    Wallingford stated (perhaps with some justifiable pride) the
    accomplishments and expertise of Dr. Anderson in the field of bee
    viruses.  It doesn't mean that everyone has to agree with Anderson on
    his scientific findings and conclusions, but there is no basis to
    question the integrity of his arguments.
 
    The same applies to Dr. Shimanuki.  Indeed, he did visit New Zealand and
    Australia some years ago to get a better understanding about the bee
    health control mechanisms they have in place out there.  What basis do
    you have to be so cynical in brushing off his visit as a 6-week paid
    holiday?   You probably would have been as accusatory if USDA would not
    have send a bee researcher on a fact-finding mission, and let US
    beekeepers in the dark about the situation in the southern hemisphere.
 
    I know Walter, that you have been bitterly opposed to the decision(s) of
    your government on its bee import policy, as it unfolded in the fall of
    1994. (Your correspondence in several ABJ issues of that time attest to
    that).  Some of your arguments have been valid.  I also remain concerned
    about the potential impact KBV (and other viral agents) might have in
    the future where Varroa acts as principal vector.  But so far, KBV has
    not proven to be the disasterous agent some have claimed it to be.
    Although here in Canada we have done surveys (indeed we have KBV which
    had been reported as far back as 1985) and further research, it remains
    a highly specialized field of research that requires very expensive
    equipment to carry out.  Without anyone claiming that KBV and others are
    harmless, the findings have so far failed to indicate that KBV is of
    comparable significance to other pests such as HBTM, AFB, Chalkbrood or
    Varroa.  You may not agree with it but that is what our experience and
    literature tell us.
 
    In regards to posting our utterances, lets not stand on our soapboxes
    and become accusatory; keep the discussion focused on the issue(s).
 
 
    Paul van Westendorp                         [log in to unmask]
    Provincial Apiarist
    British Columbia

ATOM RSS1 RSS2