Jump to content
Frederick

Commodity Levy / Fight for the Industrys future?

RISK OF CLOSURE

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Daley said:

Haha I’m a millennial, don’t you know we don’t care about gender anymore

Not only that, your generation is educating us ignorant olds to a whole new range we were blissfully unaware of.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, yesbut said:

Right, I see. So you'll call your next son Sue ........

I won’t haha but it’s likely I will choose a gender neutral name 😂

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am veery interested in gender ..... it's important.... particularly when as a single fellah I was riding the rails  on a train in India and being seranaded by a stunningly beautifull lady .....with a six O'clock shadow.

Edited by jamesc
  • Like 1
  • Haha 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jamesc said:

I am veery interested in gender ..... it's important.... particularly when as a single fellah I was riding the rails  on a train in India and being seranaded by a stunningly beautifull lady .....with a six O'clock shadow.

Haha I’m only kidding around.

Gender is important in some regards, like you say 😂

But in others it should be irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jamesc said:

I am veery interested in gender ..... it's important.... particularly when as a single fellah I was riding the rails  on a train in India and being seranaded by a stunningly beautifull lady .....with a six O'clock shadow.

Dont worry Jamesc, -what happens on tour stays on tour,- but you could tell us and we wont pass it on.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another definition of a corporate beekeeper.

Someone who knowingly puts 220 hives one paddock away causing me to have to work flat out to control the robbing on the hottest day of the year.

  • Sad 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, john berry said:

Another definition of a corporate beekeeper.

Someone who knowingly puts 220 hives one paddock away causing me to have to work flat out to control the robbing on the hottest day of the year.

Desperation?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jamesc said:

Desperation?

Stupidity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure they do it just to annoy me because I speak out against such practices. They come and go but sometimes they stay there for months and they are making an apiary my family has had bees on for three generations no longer worth having. That amount of hives of course effects every hive for at least 8 km which includes another couple of my sites and some other beekeeper friends .

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure how to link things but was just reading an article in stuff, "MPI to advise Govt on biosecurity funding". Government wants another bite out of  all primary sector levies.

Be careful what you're letting yourselves in for people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@potz This is the article you refer to:  https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/110768404/mpi-to-advise-government-on-new-biosecurity-levy

 

This has nothing to do with this Commodity Levy.  Government is not considering changes to commodity levies as part of this review.

 

What this does tell us is that  Government expects us to be joined up and able to contribute if and when a biosecurity event takes place.

 

At present our sector is fragmented and does not have access to its own pool of funding, hence the need for this levy and effective industry representation 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, potz said:

not sure how to link things but was just reading an article in stuff

 copy and paste the URL of the page you are referring to and do the same for a sentance or more that specifically meets your point.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no doubt the government wants to pay our share when it comes to bio security. What I want to know is why the people importing the risk goods are not paying. There are serious bio security breaches on an almost weekly basis which suggest something is wrong with the system and beekeepers, farmers and horticulturalists paying for the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff is not going to change that.  As for beekeepers not paying their share, we didn't import varoa and we're still paying for that mistake.

  • Agree 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john berry said:

As for beekeepers not paying their share, we didn't import varoa and we're still paying for that mistake.

Then who did please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago I was invited to visit Parliament with a group of beekeepers and it was pretty obvious that the government blamed beekeepers for varoa. The interesting thing with varoa is that we didn't get small hive beetle and more especially tracheal mite which you would have expected had it come in on a swarm or even cage Queens. My guess would be varoa came in as a single varoa either on someone's clothing or more likely on imported flowers and a bee just happened to  land on the flower and that was it. The chances of that happening are not great but it only takes one varoa. Chalk brood came in with the illegal importation of Caucasian queen So I don't discount that somebody was stupid enough to do such a thing but they would have brought tracheal mite at the same time . What I would like to know is who told the government that beekeepers were responsible for an own goal and did they have any evidence to back it up.

  • Good Info 2
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, john berry said:

Many years ago I was invited to visit Parliament with a group of beekeepers and it was pretty obvious that the government blamed beekeepers for varoa. The interesting thing with varoa is that we didn't get small hive beetle and more especially tracheal mite which you would have expected had it come in on a swarm or even cage Queens. My guess would be varoa came in as a single varoa either on someone's clothing or more likely on imported flowers and a bee just happened to  land on the flower and that was it. The chances of that happening are not great but it only takes one varoa. Chalk brood came in with the illegal importation of Caucasian queen So I don't discount that somebody was stupid enough to do such a thing but they would have brought tracheal mite at the same time . What I would like to know is who told the government that beekeepers were responsible for an own goal and did they have any evidence to back it up.

Thanks @john berry. Valuable information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got a couple of interesting emails today from someone who will remain nameless (for now) … included was this gem...

 

"...our historical export markets in Europe for Clover & Honeydew were not supported by NZ beekeepers over the last 6 years, this effectively removed NZ from the market from a buyers perspective, we are now paying the penalty."

 

From my perspective as a predominantly pasture based beekeeper, I would have to change "NZ Beekeepers" to "Honey Marketers". The glamour kids selling emu oil or whatever faddish thing they can put a spin on will move on from ti-tree as soon as it loses its shine, leaving a right stinking mess behind them. Yet these are the people that want a yes vote. 

Honey used to be an enjoyable spread, suddenly its the next tulip. The spin doctors have taken a family business based primary industry that was pottering along quite happily and turned it into a corporatized, regulation constrained, Government impaired, managerially bloated, ruthlessly and immorally competitive, vampiric soulless monstrosity determined to bleed to death the very foundation of its sustenance. 

 

I cannot and will not endorse any organization (or levy proposed by such) that has Corporate Honey Marketers with little to no respect for bees or beekeepers as majority voices.

 

Here endeth the rant.

 

  • Like 7
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Meerkatt said:

Got a couple of interesting emails today from someone who will remain nameless (for now) … included was this gem...

 

"...our historical export markets in Europe for Clover & Honeydew were not supported by NZ beekeepers over the last 6 years, this effectively removed NZ from the market from a buyers perspective, we are now paying the penalty."

 

From my perspective as a predominantly pasture based beekeeper, I would have to change "NZ Beekeepers" to "Honey Marketers". The glamour kids selling emu oil or whatever faddish thing they can put a spin on will move on from ti-tree as soon as it loses its shine, leaving a right stinking mess behind them. Yet these are the people that want a yes vote. 

Honey used to be an enjoyable spread, suddenly its the next tulip. The spin doctors have taken a family business based primary industry that was pottering along quite happily and turned it into a corporatized, regulation constrained, Government impaired, managerially bloated, ruthlessly and immorally competitive, vampiric soulless monstrosity determined to bleed to death the very foundation of its sustenance. 

 

I cannot and will not endorse any organization (or levy proposed by such) that has Corporate Honey Marketers with little to no respect for bees or beekeepers as majority voices.

 

Here endeth the rant.

 

Enough beating about the bush.

Are you sure you don't want to tell us how you really think about the Levy proposal.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Meerkatt said:

Got a couple of interesting emails today from someone who will remain nameless (for now) … included was this gem...

 

"...our historical export markets in Europe for Clover & Honeydew were not supported by NZ beekeepers over the last 6 years, this effectively removed NZ from the market from a buyers perspective, we are now paying the penalty."

 

From my perspective as a predominantly pasture based beekeeper, I would have to change "NZ Beekeepers" to "Honey Marketers". The glamour kids selling emu oil or whatever faddish thing they can put a spin on will move on from ti-tree as soon as it loses its shine, leaving a right stinking mess behind them. Yet these are the people that want a yes vote. 

Honey used to be an enjoyable spread, suddenly its the next tulip. The spin doctors have taken a family business based primary industry that was pottering along quite happily and turned it into a corporatized, regulation constrained, Government impaired, managerially bloated, ruthlessly and immorally competitive, vampiric soulless monstrosity determined to bleed to death the very foundation of its sustenance. 

 

I cannot and will not endorse any organization (or levy proposed by such) that has Corporate Honey Marketers with little to no respect for bees or beekeepers as majority voices.

 

Here endeth the rant.

 

For the record it wasn't me who sent this email, but I wish I had.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The email was (ironically) from an APINZ board member who is part of the problem, not part of a solution, who wants a yes vote...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, john berry said:

Many years ago I was invited to visit Parliament with a group of beekeepers and it was pretty obvious that the government blamed beekeepers for varoa. The interesting thing with varoa is that we didn't get small hive beetle and more especially tracheal mite which you would have expected had it come in on a swarm or even cage Queens. My guess would be varoa came in as a single varoa either on someone's clothing or more likely on imported flowers and a bee just happened to  land on the flower and that was it. The chances of that happening are not great but it only takes one varoa. Chalk brood came in with the illegal importation of Caucasian queen So I don't discount that somebody was stupid enough to do such a thing but they would have brought tracheal mite at the same time . What I would like to know is who told the government that beekeepers were responsible for an own goal and did they have any evidence to back it up.

Its irrelevant how Varroa got here however it is relevant that caged queens came to NZ in shirt pockets.

If a beekeeper did not bring Varroa here it was only due to luck.

 

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/02/2019 at 4:38 PM, Sailabee said:

The reality is that NZ Beekeeping arose out of those who left the executive group set up to combine the NBA and FF BIG. They left when they realised that the head-in-hive real beekeepers were effectively going to be out-voted once the new ApiNZ executive was formed. The spreading of votes to those who are not primarily beekeepers has certainly not brought in the subscriptions expected judging by the lack of disclosure of membership numbers. Important to note that those not primarily commercial beekeepers have currently 45% of the executive vote - do they have 45% of the membership?  Commercial beekeepers have 45% and the supposed hobby (FF BIG) member 10%. Now @Don Mac  do you think NZ Beekeeping should be grateful for a few crumbs/votes? The system has not been a success from a poorly researched and rushed manuka standard, inequitable raise on AFB levies and a proposed honey levy to help keep ApiNZ afloat.

Your comment 'The system has not been a success from a poorly researched and rushed manuka standard' is not helpful or entirely accurate. The industry had years to come up with a Manuka standard and could not agree. The government and MPI in order to safe guard an industry introduced a standard that would satisfy global markets and prevent export barriers closing the door to Manuka. The definition may not be perfect but it now represents a cornerstone in the Manuka Trade mark battle with Australia and other countries. Without the definition there would be no chance of success. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Adam Boot said:

The government and MPI in order to safe guard an industry introduced a standard

This sounds as if it is two entities.  But we all know that MPI and the Government are in fact 1 entity.  So your article @Adam Boot is not entirely accurate either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Trevor Gillbanks said:

This sounds as if it is two entities.  But we all know that MPI and the Government are in fact 1 entity.  So your article @Adam Boot is not entirely accurate either.

Not quite right either. A government department is an agent of and subject to the direction of the elected government, but it is not THE government.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, yesbut said:

Not quite right either. A government department is an agent of and subject to the direction of the elected government, but it is not THE government.

 

2 minutes ago, yesbut said:

Not quite right either. A government department is an agent of and subject to the direction of the elected government, but it is not THE government.

Thank you. The MPI under the direction of the Government moved to address International trade concerns. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Be advised that this topic is currently being actively monitored by moderators and it may be locked at any time.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...