Trevor Weatherhead said:
> In an attempt to stop the misinformation being spread around...
> ...taxonomic entomologists have identified it as Aethina tumida.
> DNA shows it to be the Durban strain of Aethina tumida. This is
> different to the two (2) strains known to be present in the USA and
> others that exist in various countries in Africa including Egypt.
> If some taxonomic entomologist wants to give it a new name, I suppose
> it will depend whether that person is a lumper or splitter.
OK, so where is the claimed "misinformation"? It appears clear that the beastie
at hand is clearly different from the norm, and that even taxonomists could go
either way on naming. If some would prefer to call it a "different strain", I'm sure
no one will object. The operational word is "different".
Allen said:
> If my choice of words has caused confusion, I, of course apologise.
Not to worry, it was not your choice of words in the first place.
Regardless, semantics are a debating tactic most charitably described as
"the last refuge of the desperate".
> The fact remains, however that the beetle in Oz is observedly different,
> and all the differences are not completely known.
Exactly. It could be that the "Durban strain of Aethina tumida" will turn out
to be slightly LESS threat to managed bee colonies and honey crops, but the
information at hand appears to indicate that it is at least "just as bad", if not
worse a pest as the type (or "strain", or whatever) that has been plaguing the
Southeastern USA and other countries.
All this sets up a very complex little puzzle:
a) Australia has chosen to drop their quarantine, so their entire continent
will be considered by the OIE to be "infested" with this unique strain of
pest, just as the entire continental US is considered to be "infested" with
pests/diseases that clearly are not found everywhere.
b) If Canada chooses to continue to allow imports of Australian queens and
packages under these conditions, this would be grounds for some pointed
questions about the basis for the ongoing Canadian ban on queens and packages
from the continental US. The most likely phrases to be trotted out would be
"non-technical barrier to trade" and "unequal treatment". From there, it would
spiral into the sort of unpleasantness between Canada and the US not seen since
the War of 1812.
c) The resulting status of the pending demands by a handful of Australian bee
producers for "US market access" is best illustrated by the following sequence
of stills from the movie "Monty Python and The Holy Grail" - the "Black Knight" scene:
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/pictures/04-arthur-trots-up.html
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/pictures/04-arm-off.html
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/pictures/04-one-leg.html
http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/pictures/04-call-it-a-draw.html
d) Meanwhile, New Zealand continues to sweat bullets over the width of the Cook
Strait (which varies from 16 to 190 miles [26 to 396 km] in width) in light of their
varroa "problem". It apparently has not yet occurred to them that their varroa
"problem" allows them to start working on a bee that would actually be worth buying,
as bee importing nations need and want varroa-resistant bees, rather than what NZ
currently exports.
So where does all of this leave us? The only rational strategy for each party to take
is to avoid conflict and argument by openly advocating and working out a port-of-entry
inspection and testing protocol that will allow exports from all parties to all parties, and
transcend all the OIE/SPS nonsense about "disease-free", "pest-free", and other concepts
that work fine for trade in inanimate objects, but don't work at all when applied to trade in
live animals like bees.
The alternative would be a very messy and very expensive waste of time, and a process
that would exclude beekeepers from the negotiation. Bottom line, imported bees are
not a bad idea at all, as long as everyone can assure that they are importing nothing else.
jim
|
