Jim, and all,
Jim, could you please remind me where you found proof that the following
statement is true? “Now remember, this sort of advocacy has been directly
responsible for the EXTINCTION of at least two kinds of bumblebees…”
Since I find your conclusion regarding the paper in question to be totally
erroneous, I can not assume that this conclusion, which seems a little far
fetched at face value, is not erroneous as well. Two possible sources of
error exist in your above statement, 1) Are the advocacies that you are
lumping together in this statement truly in alignment with each other as
you say? And 2) Did the extinction in question really happen for the
reasons you state?
Now for the reasons that I find your conclusion that the paper at
http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_action.
html
to be way wrong.
THE COATTAILS:
"The recent widespread loss of honey bee colonies from Colony Collapse
Disorder (CCD) has received a lot of media coverage. Major media outlets
across the US have covered this story including the NY Times, the CBS
Nightly News, and the Christian Science Monitor. At this time the cause of
CCD remains a mystery. It may be one or more factors, such as parasitic
mites, disease, pesticides or diet."
** A simple statement of fact.
THE HOOK USED TO RIDE THE COATTAILS:
"No matter what the cause of these declines, many scientists feel that
native pollinators - specifically, native bees - can be an insurance policy
for honey bee scarcity."
**Again, a statement of fact. I fail to see anything scary or sneaky about
stating facts.
THE RATIONALE FOR RIDING:
"The European honey bee is the most important single crop pollinator in the
United States. However, 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."
**I read that as; To the extent that honey bees do not fulfill a
pollination need in agriculture that native pollinators can, agriculture
can benefit from a strong alternative source of pollination in the form of
native pollinators. I feel that to read it as a statement of a goal to go
head to head with beekeepers at the expense of beekeepers is baffling.
You say; “you can't ignore that the best summary of the quoted in context
statements is "Kick 'em When They're Down".
Sorry, Jim, I find that conclusion just plain wrong and yes paranoid does
come to mind. You are reading something into it that is not there.
The paper referred to above deals with the importance of providing habitat
for native pollinators in order, when possible, to benefit farmers. I am
unclear as to how providing habitat for a native creature constitutes
exploitation of it. I guess if we benefit from it you could say we exploit
it. Anyway, we beekeepers may be on shaky ground arguing against the
exploitation of insects.
Anyway, I appreciate being able to argue the point with you.
Steve Noble
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|