Brian Fredericksen cited:

>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/06/MNG1VQRN6
B1.DTL

and quoted thusly:

> "But he said the honeybees' plight has drawn attention to the overall 
> issue of pollinators' decline."

Well, the Coevolution Institute certainly has done its darndest to 
USE and MANIPULATE the plight of the honey bee to draw attention to 
the unrelated issue of native pollinators, even though there is 
very little connection between the two subjects.

Now I'm sure that none of us (beekeepers) begrudge the money and 
attention being focused on native pollinators, but can we endorse 
the attempt to use problem "A" to justify tax dollars to work on 
different problem "B"?

Isn't this being party to fraud?

That's my basic problem here - the truth is being twisted around
to support an agenda that has nothing to do with agriculture at all.

> "It's a challenging budget situation,' he conceded, saying money 
> for the pollinators will have to compete with lots of other interests 
> when Congress passes its agricultural spending bill."

Yes, it certainly is "challenging" to attempt to divert money
appropriated 
for agriculture to issues of general habitat and environmental
degradation.

> "We too often take pollinators' services for granted. They're just
there. 
> But now we're starting to recognize that the value of these honeybees
far 
> exceeds the value of their honey." 

Note how "honey bees" are classified as "pollinators" only when it meets
the needs of the Coevolution Institute.  And "they're just there"?
Clearly,
this fellow needs to help load and unload hives in the dead of night for
a few weeks so he can find out how the pollinators get to the crops.

OK, so what?  Why should we care? 
We become party to a fraud upon the citizens of the USA, who pay
taxes, and expect the money to be appropriated based upon honest
and factual deliberations.

Further, the STATED GOAL of these advocates of native pollinators
is to COMPETE with beekeepers:

http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_act
ion.html

"...with the decline in the number of managed honey bee colonies 
from diseases, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees - as well 
as from Colony Collapse Disorder - it is important to increase 
the use of native bees in our agricultural system.

Hundreds of species of native bees are available for crop 
pollination. Research from across the country demonstrates that 
a wide range of native bees help with crop pollination, in 
some cases providing all of the pollination required. These 
free, unmanaged bees provide a valuable service, estimated 
recently by scientists from the Xerces Society and Cornell 
University to be worth $3 billion annually in the US."

That sounds like a sales pitch from someone who would
be quite happy to see beekeepers become as obsolete
as buggy-whip makers.

Go search their web site and their promotional materials to 
find out just how seldom they mention honey bees (or any 
managed pollinator) in a positive way.  Go look for a Honey 
Bee on the new stamps issued for "National Pollinator Week".  
Go try and find any actual support for Honey Bees and 
beekeepers in their materials.  It isn't there.  To them,
we are "part of the problem".

Consider the June 26th hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans to address the "CCD" problem 
and review a Senate "companion bill" to HR1709, 
( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1709 ) 
a terse little bill introduced in March that requested emergency 
CCD funding and nothing else.  (Go ahead and read it - it is short 
and sweet.)

So, what is the hearing named?
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1
10
"The Birds and the Bees: How Pollinators Help Maintain Healthy
Ecosystems"
Uh oh... "birds".  "Healthy ecosystems".  Not agriculture at all.

Here are a few statements made by Congressman Blumenauer
in the Senate hearings held >>>3 FULL MONTHS<<< after the
introduction of HR1709:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=2324


1) "Many do not realize that agricultural production is 
heavily dependent on pollinators. In the US, for example, 
it is almost exclusively dependent on wild native bees."

2) "Native bees are also crucial to the health of our 
ecosystems, as they are more versatile than honey bees."

3) "It is apparent that we put our agricultural production - 
and food supply - at risk when we rely on a single 
species, such as the honey bee, for pollination."

Who wrote this misleading stuff for this Congressman?
Oh wait, he mentioned a few suspects:

"I would like to recognize... the Coevolution Institute... 
Additionally, I would like to highlight the Xerces Society, 
located in my hometown of Portland, Oregon..."

What bothers me in all this is the twisting of facts.

All three of the statements written for the Congressman
to read are misleading given the realities of practical
agricultural pollination.  The Alfalfa Leafcutter Bee, the 
specific types of Bumblebees used in greenhouses, and the 
Honey Bee are all "introduced species", and they do the 
overwhelming majority of the pollination that puts food 
on the table.  The practical applications of "native
pollinators" are so limited that there is not a single
food or seed crop that can be said to be effectively and
economically pollinated by any "native pollinator".
These advocates of native pollinators can't list even
a single example crop in their own promotional materials
beyond experimental attempts.

The food crops that are pollinated are themselves introduced, 
hybridized, and overtly bred.  Why should we expect "native
pollinators" to reliably work plants that are not native?

We work in agriculture.  There is little or nothing "natural"
about it.  It is how we feed so many people for so little
money.  

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************