Jim
I really do not know how to reply to your last response. Whilst I - and
many others I am sure - appreciate your acerbic wit, I am struggling to
find
any logic in your comments.
> 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.
Perhaps the distance allows for a more reasoned approach, rather than the
intemperate language used by those directly affected?
> 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".
No. What is needed is a calm statement of the facts, e.g. 'we believe that
we have a serious problem, we do not know the reason at this stage but we
are doing everything possible to establish the facts and expect to be able
to give a further update xxxxxxxx'. You could add that there are problems
with funding necessary research if appropriate and point out the possible
consequences for crop pollination if an answer is not found quickly.
> she brought up the specter of >>>CROP FAILURES<<< as a direct result of
> the
> colony losses.
Is that not true? IF there is a serious problem and there are not enough
colonies to pollinate economically important crops then there will be crop
failures. It is the message that I have been hearing from a distance of
several thousand miles. Clearly it has also reached Ceri.
> Talk about an over-the-top scare-headline, blown-out-of-proportion,
> sensational over-reaction!
I am sure that you do not even convince yourself.
> 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.
Let me draw you attention once again to the article in the St Peterburg
Times:
'Not only are the livelihoods of beekeepers endangered, Hayes said, but so
is the estimated one-third of the nation's food supply that depends upon
honeybee pollination - apples, almonds, melons, blueberries and some
varieties of citrus, including grapefruit.'
Have you warned Jerry that he is about to be fired?
> Perhaps the Honey Queen's intention was to express concern over honey
> crops rather than pollinated crops...
No - she clearly said: 'even more important than the honey is the role of
bees in pollination and if those crops are going to fail then it's going to
be a big problem...'
> 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.
Now who has gone over the top?
> ...management practices are clearly not something that can be blamed.
Many would not agree that this is at all clear. Even if we were to accept
that there are pathogens involved (and that is not yet clear either), we
all
know that there is a strong link between many diseases and management
practices.
> So, it is something new.
You could be in a minority there. But if you are right, then it is indeed
something not only new - but absolutely terrifying in terms of the speed
with which it has spread across the US. I am afraid to blink in case I
miss
seeing it pass over the UK!
> Anyone want to give odds that we will end up
> seeing this called "Bee AIDS" in the press,
We have - thanks to beekeepers using those words. Q.E.D. yet again?
Best wishes
Peter Edwards
[log in to unmask]
www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/
***********************************************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
***********************************************************************************
|
