James Fischer wrote:

>>AFAIK, there is usually a considerable distinction between 'animal
>>health', and 'public health' inspection and enforcement, although there
>>is an overlap.  This overlap occurs where animals may exhibit serious
>>diseases which can also affect humans.
>>
>>
>
>Three words - "Hoof And Mouth"
>

>While "Foot IN Mouth" is common in humans,
>"Hoof and Mouth" poses no risk to humans.
>

There is always these little gems:  TB, Salmonella, herpes B, Anthrax,
Chlamydiosis, Giardia, Brucellosis, Rabies, Toxoplasma etc - if you are
looking for true zoonoses.  Some of the above have regulatory
significance and would make any animal health professional a public
health professional, others do not.  10 points if you can guess which are.

Keep also in mind that inappropriate use of miticides and antibiotics in
honeybees could easliy be considered a public health concern.

>This apparently includes most of the first line of defense,
>or more accurately, the ONLY line of defense.
>
One must also consider that while many "animal health" issues are not
"public health" (e.g. hoof and mouth) issues they are often significant
in an economic sense, and can have devastating sequallae.  Spreading
hive beetles would have a serious economic impact, though little public
health significance unless one were to argue that misapplication of
checkmite could result in honey of significant public helath concern.

One might argue that if they produced more tangable benefits one might
overlook the incenvenience of a surprise visit.  Of course what was
initially posted about was just plain incompetance - and that is a
separate issue from surprise inspections.

Keith

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::