>The efforts of the "native pollinators" in this area of inquiry are
>cynical, self-serving, and fraudulent.
A little harsh, Jim! I know some of these people, and they sure don't fit
the above description.
Looking at pollinators in general helps with the larger picture, and, in
general, what's good for native pollinators is good for honeybees.
In order to get a broader base of support in Congress, it may help to
broaden the bill to be more inclusive. There are a number of commercial
crops that can do just fine with, or are augmented by, native (or non
honeybee) pollinators--apples, blueberries, squash, sunflowers, and alfalfa
come to mind.
The problem to agriculture is only indirectly due to CCD. It is directly
due to fear of inadequate pollination, from whatever species.
I'm a commercial beekeeper, and my income depends upon honeybees. If the
almond growers were to find a native pollinator, it might put me out of
business. However, I'm also a citizen of this planet, and don't mind
sharing some space with the native pollinators.
I don't know the history of the bill, but there are those who feel that CCD
is a natural phenomenon that will likely recur, and then "disappear" again.
Those of this bent may feel that throwing truckloads of taxpayer dollars at
chasing the elusive cause might be a waste of said taxpayers' dollars.
However, using taxpayer dollars to better understand the scope of
pollination issues in the current bill might be wiser. As the Xeres guy
stated: "This bill can help to improve crop security and the sustainability
of agriculture, by helping farmers in the United States diversity their
pollinator portfolio."
Randy Oliver
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|