Thanks for the two articles Peter.  I am in complete agreement that we
should investigate these hypotheses.

However, wildlife has suffered from epizootics long before humans existed,
let alone invented synthetic pesticides.  The primary cause of epizooitics
today is human transport of pathogens across geographical barriers.

Another primary cause of species loss, as well as bee forage loss, is
simple habitat modification by humans.

Neither of the above give pesticides a clean bill of health.  However, I am
more concerned about pesticide effects upon aquatic ecosystems as opposed
to terrestrial.

Re neonics, there are clear problems with dust from seeding operations,
chemigation, as well as excessive application in landscape use and with
foliar applications.  Why groups are focusing on clothianidin, which likely
causes the least amount of pesticide problems when properly applied as a
seed treatment is beyond me.  I am much more concerned about clearly
identified neonic problems.

Re the neonics, I feel that we should not cherry pick the data to support
one prejudice over another. For every one of the alarmist articles, I find
equally compelling research supporting their safety, so I don't feel that
the "end of the world as we know it" camp deserves our support at this time
in calling for outright bans.  I do strongly support, however, greater
restriction of certain uses, as suggested above.

And as Pete Borst suggested, it's really easy if you have an agenda against
any product, to ramp up the dose and find that it has some negative effect
upon stressed animals held in cages.  What means much more to me are tests
of Koch's Postulates under actual field conditions, which are sorely
lacking with regard to neonics.

But consider this, if neonics were really that harmful to bee colony
health, why has no one been able to date to demonstrate it in simple field
trials?  These are a no-brainer.  And that was Pettis' point.

On the other hand, there are plenty of controlled and uncontrolled tests in
which sustained exposure to neonics *at field realistic doses* simply
didn't appear to cause measurable harm to either honey bee colonies,
bumblebees, nor solitary bees (which would be far more susceptible, due to
their lifestyle).

Judy Wu and Vera Krischik have recently completed studies in which nucs
were fed various doses of imidacloprid over long periods.  There were no
measurable negative effects at field realistic doses for seed treatment.
 However, there were significant effects at landscape-approved treatment
levels.  These are exactly the kind of studies that need to be done.

The problem that I see for beekeepers is that if we are perceived by the
regulatory agencies as extremists who keep crying wolf, that they will then
simply dismiss us as radicals, and not address our legitimate concerns.
 Any legitimate concern needs good supportive data.  That data exists for
some problems.  As beekeepers, we should limit our petitions to government
on the results from that data, and then encourage research into testing our
other concerns.
-- 
Randy Oliver
Grass Valley, CA
www.ScientificBeekeeping.com

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

Guidelines for posting to BEE-L can be found at:
http://honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm