Pav said:

> our National Beekeeper's Association is too busy shooting itself in both feet with
> a machinegun to really be effective at lobbying government to increase surveillance
> in this direction following Australia's nasty surprise

Yes, NZ should ratchet up their scrutiny of imports.  There are a few representatives
in your government who have advocated inspecting a higher percentage of multi-mode
shipping containers, which would be a very good move.

> As for north americans worrying about getting nasties from Oz or NZ - relax, its a strawman
> of those seeking to create artificial trade barriers.

How is it OK for New Zealanders to be concerned about this, but not North Americans?
I'd sure like to understand how/why this self-contradictory stance exists in the minds of
otherwise rational people.

> Both of these countries have less resident pests than north america

I think it would be more accurate to say that both countries are AWARE OF less pests and
diseases, or alternatively, ADMIT TO HAVING less pests and diseases.  It must also be noted
that both countries' smug attitudes have been harmful to their beekeepers. New Zealand's
MAF estimates that their varroa infestation existed for some number of years, and clearly
was being spread within NZ by queen producers before it was first detected.  Australia
estimates that the infestation of their species or subspecies of SHB existed for some
number of years before it was detected.  The lesson is that one will never find what one does
not look for.

So what's the NEXT pest or disease that goes undetected for years?  Tropilaelaps clareae?
I wouldn't wish that beastie on anyone.

> both [NZ and Australia] take biosecurity very seriously,

Which underlines why North American countries need to start doing so.  If "very serious"
biosecurity efforts can't keep large obvious external pests like varroa and SHB from getting
in and taking over, think of how many pests can get in when there are minimal or no
point-of-entry inspections at all, which is the current proposal for US imports.

> are bordered by oceans,

The oceans clearly prevent "natural" spread of diseases and pests, but they are no barrier
to trade transport, as both NZ and Australia have learned the hard way.

> and have far lower trade volumes than north america

Total volume is irrelevant.  The key factor is the number of shipments from countries
known to harbor pests and diseases of concern.  Not to slander an entire region, but
there should be grave concern about shipments of anything from Asian countries, since
this is where the significant pests and diseases tend to be.  These countries trade often
with both NZ and Australia.

As an update on the consideration of "imports of queens, packages, pollen, wax, and
'honey for bee feed' from New Zealand and Australia", right now we are waiting to see
if the bureaucrats of the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service can be
convinced to modify their proposal by the strongly-worded objections from the actual
scientists of the USDA Agricultural Research Service.  Details are at:

http://www/beeculture.com/imports

Perhaps USDA APHIS will be swayed by USDA ARS to admit that the word "Inspection"
is in their name for a reason.  Perhaps "congressional intervention" will be required.
Either way, it is clear that the USDA does not even have an internal consensus, which
means that the lack of a port-of-entry inspection protocol may kill both proposals.

If the handful of exporting queen producers in New Zealand and Australia really want to sell
products to the US, they would be well-advised to openly advocate point-of-entry inspections
as a part of the protocol.  Anything less just won't work, and destroys their credibility.

A really smart move would be for NZ to start offering courses on "how to inspect imports"
to other countries.  This would generate much more revenue than a few queens, assuming
that they gain the same "market share" in the US as they have in Canada (tiny, from what
data Canada has provided).

> you should worry more about where those bananas came from,
> next time you're at the supermarket.

I'm much more worried about Kiwi Fruits.


                jim