> compare these quotes with the language used by our 
> World Honey Queen, Ceri Collingbourne in a recent 
> clip on the BBC programme 'Broadcasting House' where 
> she acknowledged that there appeared to be a problem, 
> wisely refrained from speculation about new diseases, 
> and simply stressed the importance of pollination. 

It is easy for someone far removed from the practical work being
done to demur from speculating about the cause(s) of the die-offs.
Statements from those directly involved in trying to find the root
causes that "refrained from speculation" in a similar manner would 
be viewed as "stonewalling the press".

As for the specific statements made by the Honey Queen to the BBC, she 
brought up the specter of >>>CROP FAILURES<<< as a direct result of the 
colony losses.

"...if crops are going to fail, 
that's going to be a big problem..."

Talk about an over-the-top scare-headline, blown-out-of-proportion,
sensational over-reaction!

No one has even speculated that CCD might result in any crop failures.   
If someone in a position of responsibility like Jerry Hayes had used 
the phrase "crop failure", several different commodity futures markets 
might have taken a brief nosedive, and the Florida State Department of 
Agriculture would have likely be forced to fire him for having made 
such irresponsible comments to the press.

Perhaps the Honey Queen's intention was to express concern over honey 
crops rather than pollinated crops, but when one says "crop" to the 
general public, they don't think of honey, they think of veggies and 
fruits and grains.  The phrase "crop failure" tends to conjure up an 
image of starving people waiting in line for USAID and UN food paracels,
and Sally Struthers asking us all to send out money now.

So, I'd give Dave and Jerry higher marks at "dealing with the
press" than I'd give Ceri Collingbourne, as they did not make
any statements speculating about widespread famine and the end 
of civilization as we know it.



As Jerry Bromenshenk pointed out in a prior posting, there is a long 
list of things that are known to NOT the problem, and management 
practices are clearly not something that can be blamed.

In fact, the folks working on the project have given us a few hints,
and the term "pathogen" has come up more than once or twice.  The lack 
of any discernable "common factor" between linking the affected 
colonies not only rules out "management practices", it seems to clearly
indicate that the current thinking of those investigating is that we face:

a) A pathogen of some sort

b) A pathogen that can spread from colony to colony
   without much "help" from the beekeeper

So, it is something new.  Anyone want to give odds that we will end up 
seeing this called "Bee AIDS" in the press, just as Varroa seems to be
called the "vampire mite" by the press more often than not? 
   

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