Nick Wallingford said:

> It is a misrepresentation of the requirements to export to describe
> potential Australian and NZ bee breeders as being an 'honour system'.

If it is not an "honor system", then where are the checks and balances?

In business of any sort, one needs checks and balances.

...and BEFORE the bees get "in country".
It's called "bio-security".
Its also called "operating independently of trust".
To simplify, its called "good business sense".

You see, the issue at hand has nothing to do with New Zealand or Australia.

Nothing at all.

The only "issue" is that in World Trade, the LOWEST standard has
a habit of becoming the defacto standard, and there are some
countries that none of us can ever trust.

To our knowledge, this proposal is a first in world trade.
No other live animals have EVER been shipped between WTO
trading countries without some form of port-of-entry inspection.

> The systems and compliance requirements to receive a permit to export *far*
> exceed the requirements (are there *any*?) on your domestic suppliers of
> packages.

USA's "domestic suppliers" know that many beekeepers will pay them a
very personal visit if they ship packages or queens with diseases.
They wouldn't like that sort of a visit.  So they don't.

> The repetition that there is no 'inspection' involved, and that
> it is an 'honour' system appears as a systematic approach to manage
> opinions.

One can verify each and every word written with specific references to
official documents.

How else would one characterize a proposal by an agency with the
words "Animal" and "Inspection" in their very NAME, when the proposal
has no inspections of animals in it, and does not even reserve the
right to do statistical sampling?

> The fact is that any export permit obtained here will involve more
> rigour than any internal sale of bees in the US.

The "rigor" in the USA is based upon PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS.
One knows one's breeders, and can look them in the eye when they talk,
and look at their operations, and talk to their people.  They can earn trust.

Perhaps this should be reduced to a standard set of metics, but it isn't.

> US bees have trachael mites.  NZ bees do not.

Isn't that what was said about varroa recently?   :)

Regardless, why would anyone anywhere want bees bred where there
are NO tracheal mites?

That's like buying a car designed and built where they have never
had a single road accident:

        "Bumpers?  We don't have BUMPERS!!!!
         Our country is 100% accident-free!"

> But even then, if you can describe how you could ship your bees here to
> minimise that risk to an acceptable level, it doesn't even matter much what
> I or any other beekeeper think.

If you want US bees, you know the phone numbers to call.
No one from the US is going to bang their fist on the table
demanding "market access" to send live animals from here to there.
I doubt anyone ever will.  The US is just not that desperate for cash.

Let's talk about how the UK inspects all imported bees.

Everyone would want to do the same, since their system exists, and works.
What USDA APHIS are proposing is an untested kludge, a basis for
confusion and disagreement.

        ji