> Has any other US state or territory attempted total eradication?
You've clearly never heard of the "Citrus Canker Eradication Program"
in Florida:
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/pdf/cankerflorida.pdf
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/pi/canker/
...which suspended the Bill Of Rights and imposed a form of
"martial law" in Florida. Mere possession of a citrus tree
within 1900 feet of any detection of citrus canker was
cause for the state to:
a) Enter and search your property without a warrant and
without any prior notice
b) Seize and destroy any citrus trees they might find,
also without any warrant or due process
c) Arrest anyone who attempted to prevent or slow this process
in the least, including arrests for simply asking them to
not destroy the remainder of one's garden when cutting down
and cutting up a valuable and pleasant citrus tree.
d) These "police powers", in direct conflict with several
major Constitutionally-granted rights, were often wielded
by mere commercial tree-pruning employees, some who spoke
no English working in areas where English was commonly
spoken, and others who spoke no Spanish working in areas
where Spanish was the more commonly-encountered language.
So, these guys with chainsaws break down your locked gate,
shoot your dog, who merely puts up a ruckus when confronted
with strangers, start cutting down your tree(s), and call in
the Sheriff's deputy to arrest you when you object to the
cutting down of a tree in a manner that has branches falling
into your pool, and both tree hunks and muddy boots smashing
your prize petunias.
If you did NOT have a citrus tree, they merely break down your
gate and shoot your dog, and arrest you for daring to object
to any of that. And you pay a fine or do time.
And all to "eradicate" a "disease" that merely makes citrus
LOOK less attractive, a minor issue in a state where the
overwhelming majority of citrus are turned into juice.
But the hurricanes blew the fungus everywhere, thereby
making everyone realize that they needed "control"
rather than eradication:
http://www.doacs.state.fl.us/press/2006/01112006_2.html
> Is this legal?
An astute question! Sadly, under the banner of "public
health", none of us have any tangible rights. People
have been incarcerated when they had drug-resistant TB,
and refused to stay on the "take your medication every
day under the watchful eye of a nurse" program.
Now bee health is not exactly as mission-critical as
human health, so one would wonder just how draconian
the state (and USDA) might get. But then you remember
citrus canker, and abandon all hope.
> Can the USDA command us to surrender our hives in an
> effort to eradicate the mites? What authority gives
> them this power?
No, the state would, by passing a law giving the state
Ag folks the actual power. The USDA would merely
provide "support" to the state Ag people, and run the
overall program.
> Is this even viable?
Oh, I'd say it was "perfectly possible", if I could get
a trip to Hawaii out of the deal. :)
On the other hand, I'd also be able to offer compelling
arguments that it is not just "Mission Impossible", but
"Mission Ridiculous", once again, if I got a nice trip
to Hawaii out of the deal. :)
I am one of a very tiny number of people who can be
called "professional bee-liners", and I'd jump at an
all-expenses-paid trip to Hawaii to go bee-lining
every day for a few months. Where do I send a resume? :)
But in fairness, it must be admitted that the only
prior attempt at something similar, when The Santa
Cruz Island Reserve hired Robbin Thorp (non-apis bees)
and Adrian Wenner (apis bees) to eradicate all
non-native bees and hives on a very small island,
a task that seemed to them, circa 2001, to be nearly
complete:
"The feral honey bee eradication project
by Dr. Adrian Wenner, UCSB, which is down
to one 'weak' hive located in just north
and east of the main ranch in the central valley."
http://nrs.ucop.edu/Reserves/scir/highlights.html#HL01-02
...but somehow ended up taking several years more, and
was only "successful" because of varroa making its
way to the island:
"It appears that the introduction of Varroa
onto the island of Santa Cruz did what he
and Dr. Adrian Wenner could not do manually
- finished off the honey bee populations on
the island."
http://entomology.ucdavis.edu/faculty/mussen/03-04-04.pdf
But not to worry, I don't make the error of mistaking
the anti-penultimate hive for the last hive, and I
think I would be the ultimate playing field for a
worldwide bee-lining competition. It might even
become one of those "Reality TV" shows. (Hey,
this could turn out to be a serious hunk of change
for multiple beekeepers, more than you'd make off
several honey crops. Think about that.)
> Did the NZ plan even have a chance?
Given the lack of napalm use, they were certain to
miss a few feral colonies, as they did not deploy
a "trap line" of automated foraging bee detector
feeding stations. (Of course, no one has ever used
them except me, as I'm the only person to enjoy
bee-lining enough to create and run a "trap line".)
> Does it make sense to destroy hives that do not present
> with mites? What about low mite count hives?
That's a judgment call, but what part of the term
"eradication" led you to think that some hives would
be spared for any reason, or that any reasoned input
would be solicited?
> Should I care about the queen rearing companies?
If they are willing to "make you whole", you should
be willing to help protect their businesses against
what they apparently fear. No, they should provide
incentive over and above "make you whole".
> The compensation has ranged from $150 to $500 per hive.
> Our average is 100 lbs per hive and... $8/lb.
> What is my true loss?
Like I said, "make you whole" would include covering
all losses, not just replacing bees. One of the
oldest and most basic examples of "equity" in law
is that when your neighbor's dogs kill your cow, you
are owed not just the value of the cow, but the value
of both the cow and the milk it would have produced.
Somehow, I see a similar situation here.
If you have business records going back several years,
I'd say that media attention alone would get you paid,
but an injunction would not be expensive to get, either.
But wouldn't be easier to simply make your view of
"equitable compensation" known to the queen breeders
up front? They might just write you a check.
I'd start with Gus Rouse, he's a reasonable person.
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
