I think you are over-reacting.
Pete, Thanks for the thought, I spent the last 24 hours pondering your opinion. And I am sure your wrong. Hang with me as I lay it out. There is a lot going on behind the curtains! AS anyone who reads here knows, I very much support the farming community Including at the moment the neonics. I am also a beekeeper and make a good portion of my income from bee related activities. You might say I am biased, I like to think of it as actually presenting the other side. Unfortunately in todays world that’s becoming rare.
I am going to lead into this with a slightly inflammatory statement, on purpose.
Anyone with an IQ in double digits should be supporting Neonics and the current land use methods.
Now, why is that first of the Neonics side (hang with me I will tie it together with land use) Do any of our beekeeper and pollinator friends understand Neonics? I would say the answer to that is less than 5%. Neonics are DESIGNED as a much more targeted pesticide. Targeted to mean not getting on species other than the intended pest. Billions of dollars and time has been spent trying to reduce the broad use pesticides. And Tada.. we came up with a pretty cool product (the same goes for GMO items) As beekeepers and friends of pollinators why in the heck would we fight against that??? And yet here we are. We have allowed our group leaders to head out on this weird tangent.
The proof?? Bee Culture this month. Kim's Editorial, a good portion is about a group that has 3 goals. One, increase the difficulty of getting new pesticides on the market, two, put 7 million acres back in "native forage" and 3 reduce the regulations on Varro control pesticides (yes I used the word on purpose)
Lets start with the first goal, proudly stated the goal to make it harder to implement pesticides! Well at least its honest. What's missing is the understanding that the goal of any new pesticide is to be better than those before it. In today's world targeting and reductions are the keys to new pesticides. How is that bad? We are supporting groups that make it harder and harder to implement better products??? With no suggestions that old products such as Carbal or Pyrethroids be the measuring stick. Nope, just more regulations, and skipping ahead here to item 3 less regulations on beehive pesticides?? Does anyone see the hypocrisy of that?? WOW make it harder on farmers and easier on us... I have to say just typing it makes me queasy.
On to Item 3 Adding 7 million acres back to "native vegetation" Sounds like a lot, 1 million acres is roughly 40 square miles. That’s the size of most Counties. So 7 new counties taken out of farming and put back into some form of other vegetation, who's footing that bill?? Input cost have to be at least 100 per acre, not to mention the Tax bill on that land. Whos going to make the decisions on what's planted and maintained?? Personally I think it was a red hearing put in there to get people excited. Either way it’s a pie in the sky plan. I can also say that in Many many cases, "Native plants" are less desirable for bees that what's already there. But that’s a different discussion.
Lets move on to ABJ this month, at least 4 times in this months issues we are "reminded" about just how dire the bees situation is "CCD and winter losees causing huge declines in bees, and our food supply in peril" (I am not kidding I counted last night) Problem is its GARBAGE! Total garbage. And 4 times in the same magazine. Bee numbers are increasing and have been! CCD is pretty close to a non issue at the moment (not disparaging it or its research at all) and pollination prices are starting to drop. Claiming the losses are unsustainable! Really? Then who and how are be numbers and honey production rising steadily???
These tactics are all fund raising alarmist garbage, and we as an industry are falling right into the trap. Every time some of that gets printed and repeated. Its good for business. Research grants, selling hives and honey, all the above. It’s a separate industry based on a lie.
Was CCD an issue? Sure, should Neonics and land use be monitored, by all means. Should Lu,s work been funded and lauded? Not on a bet. And yet we continue to support these types of studies, and applaud "pollinators in peril" speeches. Even without any real data, as it sounds good.
Big article in one of the prints about the "report pesticide kills" and how they had a kill of many hives. When tested AGGGGG none were found! Ah but don't for a minute stop reporting them! Even those those guys were shamed. We might miss one. Step back a minute, do you really think for a second reporting any suspected kill has a goal? Are you going to get reimbursed?? Nope just evidence to be used against farmers or pesticide guys. THAT IS ALL THEY WANT. If they really wanted to help, they would start an insurance group. Hey for .50 a hive we will insure you against pesticide loss! No money in it. Why?? Pesticide kills are rare in relation to other issues.
Look at Dennis's research from a cpl years ago, number one pesticide in the hives WE PUT THERE... (never mind it was a miniscule issue) I personally have had my hives, wax and pollens tested in the last 3 consecutive years. No traces found..... and no, I don't replace comb on any sort of basis.
Lets get back a bit to land use. Citing last months bee culture annual honey report. I was astounded. I grew up in Iowa. Corn, corn, and then more corn. Not a lot of beekeepers (or people for that matter) and yet there it was, way up on the list of honey states. Should have been dead last with all that monoculture and Neonics. I happen to know one of the bigger beekeepers in Iowa, he runs 4500 hives. (they winter in CA) He works the system that most decry, moves his hives from a monoculture in CA, to a mixed bag of what many complain about in Iowa. His averages are well above normal. Pesticides only an issue when hes close to town.(his words)
I myself have bees in the edges of cornfields and 100% native river bottoms. I can tell you not much of a difference in the hives per acre ability to sustain a hive. If anything the totally native forest have less ability to sustain large numbers of colonies. I run 8-12 hives per mile (4 square miles) no matter what types of land use. More than that I see reductions in net yields and fighting.
SO twisting back to my point, what I am seeing is a lot of misleading press, and junk science in the bee industry, with only 2 possible goals. First and most likely is research grants for pet projects and continuing employment for researches and speech givers. Like it or not fundraising is an industry. Billion dollar industry. The second is banning pesticides, and shutting down many farming practices. I have spent many hours pondering it. Trying to see the motives and the goals.
What I see is that we a tiny elite group, are being manipulated (very successfully) into a very strange rabbit hole. We are being twisted to be against improved pesticides and land use. We are DEPENDANT on farming, and farmers, and yet we are being twisted into a knot about what they are doing to the land we are trespassing on. Why???? For crying out loud we have bigger problems! Varro, obviously, PPB is next, weather is huge.....
I see both issues, land use and pesticides tied together and we are being beat on the head with both, to support some legislative processes and changes that will not help us in any way. Mr. Smart is correct, we need science and research to support the process, Unfortunately in my opinion we are actually supporting and following the wrong paths. Junk science and alarmist press. Our current EPA rules and guidelines are working. We have the safest food supply in the world, not to mention the largest, and most inexpensive. This even includes our precious liquid gold, the honey.
Thanks for the discussion
Charles
***********************************************
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
|
