John Mitchell wrote:
"... Habitat loss is a significant threat to native pollinators. So are
pesticides. Competition from honey bees, if any, is not."

This "Bees on TV" and now "Bumble bees in Australia" thread has been
interesting to follow.  Some of the information presented has been objective
observation.  Some has been clearly opinion.  And some has been persuasively
phrased to enjoin others to side with the conclusions drawn.

My initial thoughts and feelings upon reading John Mitchell's summary
thoughts above were negative.  After all, exactly what is meant by
"significant threat"?  Just how detailed and extensive were the studies
referred to in the text not quoted?  How long term were these studies to be
able to make the blanket statement honeybees do not constitute a significant
threat to native pollinators?

We know that ANY new species introduced to an environment is going to
produce change.   If that species flourishes, the change to the environment
is likely to be dramatic in one or more respects.  Dramatic change of any
kind is likely to be supportive of some species while constituting a
"significant threat" to others.  Thus, a ripple effect occurs.  One thing
affects another, which affects another, and so on.  Eventually the ripples
die down and a new status quo (if you can term it that) is established.  Did
the above mentioned studies observe the goings on of a small part of the
change brought about by introduction of honeybees?  Were ripples still going
on or had they ceased?  Some of the ripples likely were manifesting among
species not included in the studies.  If such ripples were in fact going on
unobserved, it would certainly be conceivable that new ripples could
reappear later among species included in the original studies but after the
studies had drawn their conclusions.  On the other hand, maybe the ripples
had in fact ceased by the completion of the studies, in which case the
studies' conclusions would be more valid.

My point in this somewhat lengthy dissertation is to caution against fully
embracing ANY conclusions no matter how well presented.  There are almost
always some small details outside our current view that, in the long run,
turn out to be more significant than anyone dreamed.  Instead, use the drawn
conclusions as a jumping off point for the next study.  In short,
open-mindedness is the best policy.

If this note came across as an attack on John's logic, it wasn't.  John and
the others involved in this thread (as with all threads) are simply
participating in the ongoing process of discovery.  Yes, my stated thoughts
and feelings were negative.  They could just as well have been positive, as
I am sure they were for some readers.  Either response, positive or
negative, that entices one to join in the fray is good.  Only ambivalence is
truly "negative".

The soapbox is now open...

Mike