/ . --- start quotes --- / .
<>Date: Tue, 28 Feb 1995 11:20:00 -0800
<>From: "Paul van Westendorp 576-5600 Fax: 576-5652" <PVANWESTE
<>Subject: Re: Your help needed to protect Hawai'i's honey bees
<>
<> 1. I don't have the figures in front of me of the actual volume of be
<> shipped from NZ to Canada. I have requested this info from Agricultur
<> Canada and I may be able to offer that in a few days.
It sure would help to know in risk assessment the quantitative risk.
One shipment under guard is much different then hundreds of small
routine shipments.
<> I like to make the point however (which I should have done yesterday),
<> most of the bees sent from NZ to Canada involve queens, not packages.
<> queens do not pose any risk because of the manner in which they are
<> packaged and handled. It are packages that are the contentious issue.
That sounds a little too good to be true. I suspect that the
queens will have attendants, and also suspect that there are viral and
genetic diseases that are spread by queens. Most of these problems are
not detectable by visual inspections of the queens at time of shipment
or by the normal bee regulatory service that exists in the states.
<> 2. In your e-mail you mention that Hawaii remains the only Varroa fre
<> state of the US. I fully agree, it should remain that way. But NZ is
<> free of Varroa and I suspect it is equally determined to keep itself f
<> the mite. So, in regards to Varroa, NZ does not pose any risk to Hawai
<> The previous discussion was focusing on a list of some exotic, inciden
<> pathogens reported to be present in NZ and whose distribution in other
<> of the world is not well known.
As far as I know Hawaii is the only state in the United States
that has not reported the mass unexplained decline, or death of bees from
unknown causes, referred to lately as PMS, and in the past as fall
collapse, disappearing disease, t. mite, v. mite, isle of wright,
or whatever the popular common name of the day we want to use that has
been a plague on beekeepers in the US for the last thirty years and
more.
<> 3. The need of transshipment via Hawaii has been strictly logistical.
<> There are no non-stop flights from NZ to Canada. Different carriers a
<> involved to cover the Pacific routes with fuel stops in Hawaii. Last
<> when former Sec. of Agric. Mike Espy did not authorize bee transshipme
<> through Hawaii, NZ suppliers and Canadian buyers were in a scramble an
<> looked for alternate routes. L.A. was an alternative but was not auth
<> either. Singapore, Bangkok and Hong Kong were possible alternatives b
<> uncertainty about the handling of such shipments under tropical condit
<> and in locations where Tropilaelaps clarae is known to exist, these ro
<> were considered unacceptable. The only remaining connection was via T
<> and indeed, some shipments did go through at considerably higher expen
A dumb question, how have these bee's or queens with bee's been
getting to Canada in the past?
<> 4. I think it is also important to put the issue in perspective. Some
<> think that NZ may inundate North America with their bees. That will n
<> happen. Although NZ bees may not be very expensive, the total cost wi
<> freight make these bees pretty expensive livestock. So, there is a
<> substantial economic constraint to package importations. With queens,
<> is similar because other sources (eg. Hawaii and on the continent) are
<> competitively priced. In addition to the economic issue, I believe
<> the stresses of intercontinental shipments place limitations on the be
<> themselves. Anyone having flown accross the Pacific knows the after
<> effects, of being 'under the weather' for a few days. Well, I suspect
<> if you are only 280 mg in weight of which at least 1/3 is comprised of
<> swollen, sensitive ovaries, and you are placed in a box, subjected to
<> pressure changes, vibrations, temperature and humidty fluctuations,
<> increased ozone levels and physical shocks (not to mention the change
<> season), you will be under the weather too. In some cases, these quee
<> started beautifully in their new Canadian home for about three weeks a
<> boom, they were superseded. This is not happening all the time, nor
<> it reflect on the quality of the NZ stock but instead, I believe, the
<> cumulative stresses of shipment may have been responsible.
I agree and this reflects the information I have received from
beekeepers, and thats why it is hard to understand the effort some are
putting into breaking down the little protection Hawaii has enjoyed.
<> In short, accessing NZ for bees, has mostly been treated as a valuable
<> complementary source of good quality stock for Canadian producers. Fo
<> industry as a whole, it has never been regarded as the principal and s
<> supplier of beestock in the spring (as California used to be for Weste
<> Canada prior to 1988). I believe American buyers will regard the NZ
<> in a similar manner in the future.
/ . --- end of quotes --- / .
Hi Paul,
I have serious doubts that American bee breeders or bee buyers will
ever consider New Zealand as a good source of genetic material. But you
may be privy to some information as to the origin of their stock that I
am not. I understood that it was mostly Northern Californian stock to
begin with. If it has real genetic value there are other means to
incorporate it into Canadian bee breeding programs other then bringing
in the live queens and risking Hawaii's bee population.
Today what we need and are looking for is stock that can survive and
I would not think stock from a country that advertises no disease is
the place to find that kind. Brazil, maybe, but not NZ.
But the real question in my mind is not the quality, quantity, or
availability of bee's from NZ, it remains the environmental risk to
the bee's and beekeepers in Hawaii. And their right to protect their
own interests in that environment. That may be different from my own
or other's interests and even if based on poor information or fear
because of the lack of information. I believe they have a right to
protect their bee's health without inside or outside interference
from bureaucrats, or so called regulatory scientists turned politicians.
(no reference to anyone you or I know). No one can possibly be proud of
the record to date on protecting America's Honey Bee's for introduction
of new and disastrous disease, pest, predators or genetic disorders.
In my opinion only a fool would believe any new promises of protection
for bee's from any agency of the US Government without long and a
complete study of the issue. I believe that is lacking and we are asked
to take the word of bureaucrats who may not know any more then enough to
do a sales job on other bureaucrats and politicians.
Hawaiian beekeepers don't want to assume the risk of bee's from NZ then
I don't think they should be told by any government that they must have
that risk because that government, my own, or others feels it is almost
safe because they did a literature search or want to risk the whole ball
of wax for their own connivance to save a few bucks in transportation
costs. Direct air transportation is available to anyone who wants to
work out the logistics and pay the price. It really is interesting that
the danger to Hawaii is being minimized, but the danger of picking up
some pest on a alternative route is real.
I know that all Canadian's and all New Zealand er's are honest people,
but sadly I can't say that about the people who work at airports in the
US and millions of pounds of materials are lost despite the best
efforts, iron clad guarantees, insurance and regulatory efforts.
ttul Andy-
|
