> You are commending the New Zealand approach on the one hand and ridiculing
> it on the other. "They have no facts, they simply made a choice." In other
> words, where they agree with you, they are right. Where they disagree with
> you, they are wrong.

Well, they are partly right and they are partly wrong.  That's why.

> Where is your study, where are your facts?

There is far more science on Jim's side than on the NZ side.  The NZ
approach is based on pseudo-science and wishful thinking backed up by an
unique situation, good luck and a draconian regime.

Resistance -- or at least reduction in susceptibility of bee stocks will
have to be an important part of any US effort due to the migratory nature of
the business and the independant and non-co-operative nature of many US
beekeepers.  Each country is different.  what works in NZ could be folly in
many other areas.

Moreover the flow patterns in some regions make inspection at time of honey
removal extremely unpleasant and awkward, if not impossible.  Matching
supers to hives may be paractical in some places, but not feasible in
others.

The NZ approach may be optimal for NZ, but may be the high cost solution
when compared to other possibilities for other countries.

B. Haver