AFB plan review
- Thread starter John B
- Start date
I filled in my survey form. I was tempted to suggest the levy be doubled to facilitate more compliance activity.
I've been genuinely interested in the numbers for a long time. Fair enough that you don't want to provide them, and that API-NZ choose to keep them fairly secret, that's entirely up to you. Just don't go baselessly claiming that API-NZ represents the majority of NZ beekeepers but then refuse to back up that claim.
true, good point - is there any way the moderators (@yesbut ?) could split off the posts with to-and-fro on API-NZ membership numbers into a thread called something like API-NZ membership numbers discussion?
How about I put the "to" posts in one thread, and the "fro"s in another, would that keep the peace ?
I also filled in a submission. Kept it brief. The most important thing in my opinion is that we have a plan and that the (aspirational) goal should always be elimination.
Mostly I am happy that we have a plan and that there seem to be some improvements being made (apiweb upgrade, more AP2s etc).
I think there could be better ways of "helping" those with real AFB issues. I think the sorts of things needed are more hands on help (from AP2s) and instilling an attitude that it needs to be dealt with properly through temporary suspension of DECA and/or the ability to put restriction of trade on outfits to discourage spread by selling infected gear/hives (i.e. make it difficult for their business to function if they don't sort it out). If these are already possible then I'd like to see them being used more liberally.
Mostly I am happy that we have a plan and that there seem to be some improvements being made (apiweb upgrade, more AP2s etc).
I think there could be better ways of "helping" those with real AFB issues. I think the sorts of things needed are more hands on help (from AP2s) and instilling an attitude that it needs to be dealt with properly through temporary suspension of DECA and/or the ability to put restriction of trade on outfits to discourage spread by selling infected gear/hives (i.e. make it difficult for their business to function if they don't sort it out). If these are already possible then I'd like to see them being used more liberally.
I don’t really know enough about the ins and outs of the PMP or governance etc but I do know I would rather deal with AFB by burning than by using antibiotics.
Many people on this forum would be surprised to know just how much pressure there has been put on in the past by some people interested in using antibiotics. Fortunately it never gained any traction but of if some of the big corporate's ended up with a major AFB problem we may well see pressure going on the government again. As for Otto's point about helping people with an AFB problem. I agree up to a certain point but I have known four recidivist AFB spreaders all of whom had endless help and education and never got any better.
That's four in little old Hawkes Bay and I just thought of two more. Some people just can't be helped and the hard-line being taken on them at the moment will make it a lot easier for the rest of us.
That's four in little old Hawkes Bay and I just thought of two more. Some people just can't be helped and the hard-line being taken on them at the moment will make it a lot easier for the rest of us.
That's why I think the help needs to go hand in hand with the financial repercussions of DECA suspension and not being allowed to trade until the problem is solved.
The change to a hive levy has been poorly thought though
Hive levy is hard and costly to police
The timing of the declaration of number of hives is crap and forces honest people to lie.
Some people may have got there honey off and wintered down and have a good handle on whats what.
Others are still getting the last of the years honey flow, still re queening etc and will not be able to give an accurate count for a little while yet
We should be going back to the apiary levy model
Hive levy is hard and costly to police
The timing of the declaration of number of hives is crap and forces honest people to lie.
Some people may have got there honey off and wintered down and have a good handle on whats what.
Others are still getting the last of the years honey flow, still re queening etc and will not be able to give an accurate count for a little while yet
We should be going back to the apiary levy model
KInda surprised that some people are still getting honey off and requeening ...... most of us are dreaming of way back when in a different lifetime this month was spent on the Gold Coast ...... loafing in the waves, getting a soothing destress on the back ....and savouring a 12oz of XXXX in the late evening glow.
Aah ..... the good ole days .
Aah ..... the good ole days .
So when is a good time.
This old chestnut is dragged out every time beekeepers are asked to do something.
Winter is no good as we are all on holiday.
Spring is no good as we need to do our spring checks and sort out swarm prevention. Also pollination is being done.
Summer is no good as we a busy putting of honey supers.
Autumn is no good because we are harvesting and requeening.
Beekeepers are just full of reasons not to do something.
I don't have an easy answer.
Couldn't agree more Trevor.
I have an accurate count for how many hives I have at any time of the year and my numbers chop and change all over the place (and I am not particularly good at paperwork). Surely most businesses run with a reasonably specific number of beehives in mind to generate their income from? I would also argue that as long as the hive numbers you are paying a levy on is in the right ball park then what does it matter? If a levy gets paid for 1500 hives when the actual number is 1507 who cares? Maybe a clause could be added that the number declared needs to be within 5% of the actual number but I doubt it is necessary. To suggest it is too hard to have a vaguely accurate count for how many beehives you have just doesn't sound realistic to me.
I would much rather pay a levy based on hive numbers as hives are the unit that is the most consistent between all beekeepers and it is the unit we base our businesses on. Honey crops get reported as kg/hive, the size of an beekeeping business always comes in how many hives they operate etc...
Disagree, some beekeepers lie about how many hives they have, just as they lied about how many apiaries they have.
The cost of policing is no different, as we work on a high trust modal.
AFB Board never physically counted your apiaries nor do we intend to physically count your hives either.
If beeks spent less time/energy admonishing the AFB plan, and more time admonishing the beekeepers who don't work to the plan and deal with AFB, then perhaps the conditions of the plan can be slowly reduced if not done away with.
Hmmm .... I'm with you there @Dennis Crowley ..... but from where I sit we have an industry with four different bodies ..... APINZ, The Renegades, The Management Agency, and Asure quality .....and nobodyt sems to keen to share information.
A good start might be to get together for Hui and agree that we all affected by the leak in the Whare roof.
Who cares whether it's abig leak or a little leak, the timber underneath is still rotting.
A good start might be to get together for Hui and agree that we all affected by the leak in the Whare roof.
Who cares whether it's abig leak or a little leak, the timber underneath is still rotting.
You left out the fifth and largest body otherwise known as the great unwashed and most of these share nothing with nobody.
This leaves the other four with very substandard information even if they want to share and I hope they do.
Aah .... The Great Unwashed.
Would they be the largest contingent of Beekeepers?
So , step one ... Unite the tribes.
Would they be the largest contingent of Beekeepers?
So , step one ... Unite the tribes.