postal irregulaty in handling seeds after quarantine.
Lee Poulsen (Thu, 25 Jan 2007 17:58:27 PST)

And therein lies the problem (and source of the argument between APHIS
and the USPS). It is ridiculous (in English) to use the words "redirect
to the addressees, and return to the mail for delivery" after being
inspected if the inspectors ARE the true addressees. It is clear that
the intent of the rule is that it be done just as the Australians do
it: No additional postage charge. But because APHIS wants to insure
that all packages that require their inspection always be delivered to
them they didn't want the real recipients' address on the outside of
the package. Which I bet according to some international postal
agreement or treaty is why the USPS is balking at continuing delivery
to an addressee that wasn't indicated on the outside of the package
from the start.

I've actually had a couple of packages that came to me that had both my
address and the green and yellow label on the packages. I can't tell
for sure, but it appears that the USPS ignored the address on the label
and just shipped them directly to me. I think this is what APHIS fears
will happen too often if any other address is on the outside of the
package. So really it is the USPS's incompetence that APHIS fears, IMO.
I suspect that the Australians are much more competent with respect to
diverting incoming packages for proper inspections than we are.

--Lee Poulsen
Pasadena, California, USDA Zone 10a

On Jan 25, 2007, at 3:48 PM, Mark Mazer wrote: