BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Karen Oland <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 1 Dec 2002 14:29:43 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
Perhaps the grower might have paid a little higher price (there are many
other pollinators out there) if he had went with someone that properly
treated and/or voluntarily quarantined his infected stock. But not gone
without.

Just because you cannot stop the eventual, slow spread of a pest does not
mean you simplify its spread. Look at the difference in spread of AHB versus
SHB -- any movement of an AHB hive is illegal across all states and most
states outlaw keeping such a hive.  So, AHB is spread mostly by natural
growth of swarms and by occasional movement in a plane, railcar or truck
(which is immediately destroyed in much of the US).  With SHB, the offical
position is "oh well" (pretty much the attitude of the TN spreader of this
pest -- although he could have stopped the spread with treatment of his
hives at the inital detection point, or at least not continued moving
infected bees across the state, where mountain ranges provided natural
barriers to natural spreading of the pest).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Harrison

> On one end you have got a grower which will not get a crop and possibly go
> bankrupt without pollination. On the other end you have got a
> beekeeper with
> bees which possibly carry the shb. The USDA does not see a way to stop the
> spread of the SHB (nor do I). The beekeeper is given a permit  to go
> pollinate.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2