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