5 ms·

http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=140 http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=140 They're not asking about fruit because they'r

by jff 10y ago

http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=140 http://jenny.tfrec.wsu.edu/opm/displaySpecies.php?pn=140 They're not asking about fruit because they're worried you may sell that single apple and drive a farmer out of business. The spread of agricultural pests and diseases is a major problem.

jacquesm 10y ago
Of course that apple will end up carrying a scary agricultural pest from Canada to the USA. Really, this is totally over the top. It's not like we're talking about a an apple that you couldn't buy on either side of the border without any differences whatsoever. And it could easily be that that apple was produced in the USA to begin with (or further South). From a pest spreading perspective this makes no sense. Going through the Southern barricade on foot I could see the point, going from Canada into the USA by bus with an apple it makes zero sense, especially since the pest you so helpfully linked here is widespread on both sides of the border anyway, besides the fact that it was extremely unlikely to carry that particular pest since it was sold as fit for consumption. Or did you feel that because it came from Canada that there was some terrible risk that would not have been present had it come from any one of the other 49 states?
- mthoms 10y ago
  Are you arguing that agricultural controls at land border crossings are ineffectual and should be dismantled? That seems to go against (what appears to be) global scientific consensus that controls like these are helpful in slowing the spread of invasive species. Or are you just arguing there should be exemptions for small amounts?
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    I am arguing that if there is no clear danger one should not go overboard, proportionality is what matters. The USA and Canada are to all intents and purposes one when it comes to this kind of control. There are some borders that have been constructed with a biological air-gap in mind but that's not one of them. This is one of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap And it is effective because it is both deep and there are no easy ways around it. I've visited places where there was definite risk of contamination and there are plenty of historic examples (of whole continents, for that matter, such as Australia) where eco-systems were upset by bringing in pests, diseases, new predators or animals without local predators so I'm well aware of the risk. But border guards going overboard because of an apple makes zero sense to me, it is an over-reaction to something that is not a threat. Yes, hypothetically you might be able to find a path through which a new disease might spread from one country to another because of a single apple. But since we allow animals to freely roam the Canadian/US border at will, since all the diseases that might affect your apple orchard as far as I'm aware are spread on both sides of the border since as long as we can remember in most cases and since that apple could have easily been inspected on carrying some kind of scary insect (which likely wasn't present or the owner would not have brought it) and everything else it might carry (some kind of blight) would likely not be carried past the point where it would survive normal indigestion and disposal the risk is so vanishingly small that it becomes a display of power rather than something useful. Case in point: The many apples that I've carried from one side of the border to the other without so much as a batted eye. It's either consistent enforcement or you might as well not enforce at all and I highly doubt the US/Canadian border is so well established that it would not be possible to carry truckloads of apples across if one were so inclined. Not all of the border is patrolled, even though you might believe other wise. When the pig disease fear was in full swing the measures were laughably inefficient and inconsistent, and that was an actual threat with serious risk of contagion. West Nile is another nice example: Mosquitoes don't see that imaginary line we call a border. Same with ant species, beetles and other big time destroyers of lives or crops. Having the border patrol confiscate apples might sell a few more apples South of the border and it might give the official a boner but it isn't going to achieve much to keep a country safer, rather the opposite, it's going to cause people to find creative ways to get their stuff across the border with the chance that someone does smuggle a box with seed potatoes carrying blight across un-noticed. And that would be a problem. An apple clearly intended for consumption is no more dangerous than any other item intended for consumption including sandwiches, liquids and so on. If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
    - raarts 10y ago
      Well put. Thank you. Absolutely crazy to think sending someone back because of an apple is in any way justifiable between two countries with such a long shared border.
      - mthoms 10y ago
        The fruit just gets confiscated (and in theory, you could face a fine). While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's not in any way common to be "sent back" for this.
    - mthoms 10y ago
      Sounds to me like you have a problem with the over-zealous enforcement of the rule, rather than the rule itself. While I agree the enforcement can be over-zealous (I've seen it first hand), I think if it wasn't produce it would just be something else they'd nitpick. It's the mentality of the guards that's the problem. And what type of system would you propose as an alternative? A threshold based on actual risk? Well then every type of produce is going to have different limits. And what about different sub-species of the same fruit? If Macintosh apples are a bigger risk than Red Delicious, surely they should have different limits. It's only fair. Now you're counting on a traveller (and border guard) to be able to know the difference between a myriad list of produce types. Good luck with that. I'd argue, that such a system would lead to slower crossings, higher costs, and less focus on more important matters like security threats. The rule itself may be extreme but makes a lot of sense in the context of processing millions of travellers efficiently. Just as with software, simple, easy to understand paradigms are usually better. >If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent. The line has to be drawn somewhere. In the interest of balancing risk and expediency "no produce allowed" seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. Even children can understand it. Heck, even non-English speakers could be made to understand it with some well designed signage. Anyways, there are way bigger issues with border crossing rules and procedures. It just seems like an odd issue to be so passionate about in this day and age.

by jff 10y ago

jacquesm 10y ago

Of course that apple will end up carrying a scary agricultural pest from Canada to the USA. Really, this is totally over the top. It's not like we're talking about a an apple that you couldn't buy on either side of the border without any differences whatsoever. And it could easily be that that apple was produced in the USA to begin with (or further South). From a pest spreading perspective this makes no sense. Going through the Southern barricade on foot I could see the point, going from Canada into the USA by bus with an apple it makes zero sense, especially since the pest you so helpfully linked here is widespread on both sides of the border anyway, besides the fact that it was extremely unlikely to carry that particular pest since it was sold as fit for consumption. Or did you feel that because it came from Canada that there was some terrible risk that would not have been present had it come from any one of the other 49 states?

mthoms 10y ago
Are you arguing that agricultural controls at land border crossings are ineffectual and should be dismantled? That seems to go against (what appears to be) global scientific consensus that controls like these are helpful in slowing the spread of invasive species. Or are you just arguing there should be exemptions for small amounts?
- jacquesm 10y ago
  I am arguing that if there is no clear danger one should not go overboard, proportionality is what matters. The USA and Canada are to all intents and purposes one when it comes to this kind of control. There are some borders that have been constructed with a biological air-gap in mind but that's not one of them. This is one of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dari%C3%A9n_Gap And it is effective because it is both deep and there are no easy ways around it. I've visited places where there was definite risk of contamination and there are plenty of historic examples (of whole continents, for that matter, such as Australia) where eco-systems were upset by bringing in pests, diseases, new predators or animals without local predators so I'm well aware of the risk. But border guards going overboard because of an apple makes zero sense to me, it is an over-reaction to something that is not a threat. Yes, hypothetically you might be able to find a path through which a new disease might spread from one country to another because of a single apple. But since we allow animals to freely roam the Canadian/US border at will, since all the diseases that might affect your apple orchard as far as I'm aware are spread on both sides of the border since as long as we can remember in most cases and since that apple could have easily been inspected on carrying some kind of scary insect (which likely wasn't present or the owner would not have brought it) and everything else it might carry (some kind of blight) would likely not be carried past the point where it would survive normal indigestion and disposal the risk is so vanishingly small that it becomes a display of power rather than something useful. Case in point: The many apples that I've carried from one side of the border to the other without so much as a batted eye. It's either consistent enforcement or you might as well not enforce at all and I highly doubt the US/Canadian border is so well established that it would not be possible to carry truckloads of apples across if one were so inclined. Not all of the border is patrolled, even though you might believe other wise. When the pig disease fear was in full swing the measures were laughably inefficient and inconsistent, and that was an actual threat with serious risk of contagion. West Nile is another nice example: Mosquitoes don't see that imaginary line we call a border. Same with ant species, beetles and other big time destroyers of lives or crops. Having the border patrol confiscate apples might sell a few more apples South of the border and it might give the official a boner but it isn't going to achieve much to keep a country safer, rather the opposite, it's going to cause people to find creative ways to get their stuff across the border with the chance that someone does smuggle a box with seed potatoes carrying blight across un-noticed. And that would be a problem. An apple clearly intended for consumption is no more dangerous than any other item intended for consumption including sandwiches, liquids and so on. If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent.
  - raarts 10y ago
    Well put. Thank you. Absolutely crazy to think sending someone back because of an apple is in any way justifiable between two countries with such a long shared border.
    - mthoms 10y ago
      The fruit just gets confiscated (and in theory, you could face a fine). While I'm sure there are exceptions, it's not in any way common to be "sent back" for this.
  - mthoms 10y ago
    Sounds to me like you have a problem with the over-zealous enforcement of the rule, rather than the rule itself. While I agree the enforcement can be over-zealous (I've seen it first hand), I think if it wasn't produce it would just be something else they'd nitpick. It's the mentality of the guards that's the problem. And what type of system would you propose as an alternative? A threshold based on actual risk? Well then every type of produce is going to have different limits. And what about different sub-species of the same fruit? If Macintosh apples are a bigger risk than Red Delicious, surely they should have different limits. It's only fair. Now you're counting on a traveller (and border guard) to be able to know the difference between a myriad list of produce types. Good luck with that. I'd argue, that such a system would lead to slower crossings, higher costs, and less focus on more important matters like security threats. The rule itself may be extreme but makes a lot of sense in the context of processing millions of travellers efficiently. Just as with software, simple, easy to understand paradigms are usually better. >If you're going to forbid apples you might as well forbid those otherwise it is inconsistent. The line has to be drawn somewhere. In the interest of balancing risk and expediency "no produce allowed" seems like a perfectly reasonable rule to me. Even children can understand it. Heck, even non-English speakers could be made to understand it with some well designed signage. Anyways, there are way bigger issues with border crossing rules and procedures. It just seems like an odd issue to be so passionate about in this day and age.