Peter asked:

> Is this how beekeepers think? They should exclude 
> the Ag industry from discussions of policy?

No, the actual problem is that beekeepers are excluded and marginalized
under the banner of meeting the "pollinator protection" goal set by the (US)
President. The membership of the panel was carefully-designed to assure that
pesticide use would not face any additional enforcement or restrictions
beyond the lax enforcement for which NY is known.

I drove up from the city to Albany to attend one of these meetings, and it
was clear that "the fix was in" from the get-go.    
Aaron was there too, and so was Mark, as he sits on the panel.  They can
corroborate my report.

The pre-ordained purpose of the meetings was to attempt to shift the
liability for pesticide exposure from pesticide applicators to beekeepers.

Forget enforcing FIFRA, in fact, the state level people responsible for
FIFRA enforcement proposed exactly the same idea.
This was couched in terms of "better communication", but the bottom line
here was that the panel, dominated by grower groups and pesticide industry
lobbyists (see list below) was essentially demanding that beekeepers:

a)  Make all of their hive placement locations known to... someone, it
wasn't articulated, most likely the state.
b)  Be reachable 24 x 7 x 365, so that a pesticide applicator or grower
nearby could "contact" them.
c)  Be able to move any number of hives away from the pesticide application
area on advance notice of... something, that wasn't clear either.

And the insulting idea of the panel attempting to draft alleged "Best
Management Practices" for beekeepers was the most condescending part of the
meeting, and a very good case study for why both open-carry and concealed
firearms are not permitted at state meetings.

Point (a) above was a thinly-veiled attempt to resurrect the long-dead "hive
registration and inspection" program, which the New York "Ag and Markets"
group attempted to put in place several years ago.  The state Farm Bureau,
who has falsely claimed to "represent beekeepers" many times, but supported
legislation that gave so much power to the state Apiarist and his
inspectors, that we beekeepers had to go to Governor Patterson's staff, and
explain how beekeepers would lose access to privately-owned locations to
keep bees due to the proposed rules. We got the funding for the entire
program terminated, nearly eliminating the entire inspection staff.  

This was the old problem that has existed in NY for decades, of an
inspection program that is of no value to the beekeeper, combined with a
long history of anecdotes of unethical practices in inspection, and the
persistent fear that the inspector, arriving without advance notice to
beekeeper or landowner, would be the one to leave a gate open, putting herds
of livestock at risk, and otherwise making the beehives an unacceptable risk
to the landowner.

Point (b) is just plain silly.  There's no reason to contact a beekeeper if
one follows the label bee protection requirements.  Clearly, the pesticides
are being used on adjacent land, as no beekeeper is going to place hives on
land that the owner knows he will soon be spraying.  So the assumption being
made is that pesticides are certain to be a problem for hives on adjacent
land, and that the "solution" is that the beekeeper needs to make himself
available to move his hives away from the danger inherent in these "safe"
application practices.

Point (c) is flatly impractical.  The beekeeper, assumed to have placed some
hives in a location for a honey crop, rather than for crop pollination, is
not likely to be waiting nearby with trucks at the ready to medi-vac his
bees away... and away to where?  The essential disconnect here was that
growers treat beekeepers like prostitutes - when they want a beekeeper, they
desperately want one right here, right now, but when they are done with
them, they want them to go away, far away, and stay away. 

So who was on the "Task Force", given that the sole subject being discussed
was "pollinator protection"?  

1) "CropLife America" has a chair at the table, they are an agricultural
pesticide lobbying group.

2) "Responsible Industry Supporting the Environment" (RISE) had a chair at
the table, and they are just an industry trade group, having no agricultural
or pollinator focus.  They propagandize at http://www.pestfacts.org

3) The New York State Agribusiness Association was there. They had a
legitimate claim to a seat at the table as an honest "grower" group.
http://www.nysaba.com/

4) The state Farm Bureau, who has falsely claimed to "represent beekeepers"
many times, but supported legislation that gave so much power to the state
Apiarist and his inspectors, that we beekeepers had to go to the Governor's
aides, and explain how beekeepers would lose places to keep bees due to the
proposed rules, and get the funding pulled, nearly eliminating the entire
inspection staff.

5) The state vegetable growers association.  Let's just say that NY is not
New Jersey, "the garden state".  No one has ever asked me to bring them any
"New York Tomatoes", for example.  :)

6) The fruit (Apple and Berry) Growers associations.  Not sure if they
merged, or simply sent one rep for both groups.

7) The state turf and landscape association.

8) Audubon New York, a group lacking more than a vague concern about
pollinators

8) The Natural Resources Defense Council, a group that makes its living
raising money to sue the EPA over ever-more trivial details.

10) The Nature Conservancy, an even more diffuse and horizontal
"environmental" group than Audubon and NRDC

11)  Steve Wilson, a hobby beekeeper who chairs the NY the Apiary Industry
Advisory Committee, set up by the Ag Commissioner after we pulled the
funding to have the greatly expanded "empire building" inspection program
the Ag Commissioner wanted.  The Commissioner is a coward, and wanted to be
able to pretend to listen to a group of beekeepers who would not heckle and
contradict his continued empire-building, so he created his own committee of
hand-picked "advisors" rather than allowing them to be selected by
beekeepers.

12) Mark Berninghausen, the only actual commercial beekeeper on the panel
who might provide a candid view of beekeeper concerns.  Mark is serving as
president of the State beekeeper association, the "Empire State Honey
Producers".  No representative was invited from the Western New York Honey
Producers, http://www.wnyhpa.org , a group with a larger percentage of
commercial beekeepers, and an at least colorable claim on being the "state
organization" for beekeepers in NY.

So, there were exactly 2 people of 12 who had even the slightest grasp of
what the specific problems of beekeepers and bees might be, and they were
both co-opted, as they were very much on the receiving end of a
carefully-orchestrated agenda designed to eat up the clock, present
defensive protestations from state agencies about how they are doing all
they can, but cannot be expected to do any more to protect pollinators, and
to introduce as a "conclusion" the idea that beekeepers are liable if they
cannot move hives at the drop of a hat for the sole convenience of pesticide
applicators. 

I drove home, as burning the place to the ground in reaction seemed a bit
harsh, even for me.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html