one of the issues here (at least in my mind) is that whatever the industry, the bulk of the industry will want to maintain the status quo, regardless of whether it is wise in the long term or not.

if your town is the widget capital of the world...but foreign competition threatens the local industry, the action that follows is likely to ask for government subsidies (or tarrifs, or import restrictions) to "maintain this way of life" rather than to find something competitive to do (premium widgets marketed as "made in the usa", use the widget infrastructure to make something else, improve manufacturing efficiency, etc).  from the outside, it seems futile and perhaps even silly (not to mention expensive)....but to those living a particular lifestyle based upon a particular way of life/making a living, it seems imperative.

i have strong opinions on what is right and wrong with our current way of doing things beekeeping-wise, and they often conflict with what the "mainstream" of the industry thinks is important.  i don't see this as a problem, per se...it's really just things working their way out.  lists such as this are an important part of this dialog, and an important part of solving problems.

i personally feel that the problems we are seeing today are a result of both the practices of most beekeepers, and how most food is grown in this country.  i don't feel that getting help from the govt. to keep things on the track they are on (treatments in the hive, monoculture agriculture, so many bees in california at once for the almonds, etc) is really helpful long term.  the way we are doing things has led us to where we are, and it is unlikely (in my opinion) that more of the same will bring us past these problems...i think they will get worse, requiring more chemical controls, more research on the effects of these controls, and more lobbying for help from washington.  to me this seems unproductive seems to dig us into a deeper hole.

i can't blame anyone for wanting to preserve their business the way they have been doing it for years, or to protect their way of life...but open and honest debate is necessary for any of us to learn anything.

when an industry is in trouble, the _best_ thing that we can do is open things up for as many alternative approaches as possible.  the more working (or not working) models we have to look at, the more choices we have, and if things do end up needing to change, there are working models (not just theoretical ones) to study, examine, analyze, and choose from.  subsidizing the status quo way of doing things only delays this process (much like welfare is likely to delay someone who is unemployed from taking a job).

thus far (speaking for myself), i doubt i would want to support what "the industry" would be lobbying for if it were well organized.  didn't the nhb spend about 1million co-promoting the jerry seinfeld embarasment of a movie to "help the industry"?  please....that money would have been better spent on anti-bee movie publicity, getting the truth of how bees live out there as a contrast rather than helping to sell fast food for mcdonalds.  the nhb has also done much of the funding of the penn state work that we have been talking about....testing the brood, comb, foundation, trapped pollen, beebread...but of course since the bulk of the beekeepers the nhb represents produces honey using the chemicals found in every other part of the hive, they did not fund for testing the honey.  this is the other shoe, and it is likely to drop sooner rather than later.

i'm not sure unity is what we actually need.

deknow

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************