Peter Borst said:

> James, you refer to the New Zealand paper, but what you are saying is
> exactly the opposite of their conclusions.

Nope, I agree with their analysis of how AFB is spread, and I agree
with both their suggested changes to beekeeping practices that
tend to spread AFB and their coordinated program.

I do not agree with burning colonies in any but the worst cases,
as would any rational person who understands how AFB is spread
by beekeepers more often than by any other method.

> They conclude using drugs is a mistake, and do not permit it.

They decided up front to forego drugs.  They did no study, they
have no facts, they simply made a choice.  No one's perfect.
In my view, they are wrong on burning, but at least they have an
actual plan.

> You saying burning is a witch-hunt, but destruction of infected
> colonies (visibly infected, read: one cell or more) is the
> centerpiece of their control program.

I would suggest that their suggested changes to practices that
spread AFB are much more important than their specific choice
between treatment and burning.  Recall that, at the outset, they
decided that they did not want to use drugs, so they were left with
only burning.  When the only tool you have is fire, everything starts
to look like kindling.

        jim