The debate raises the wider question of how valuable bees, and other
pollinators, are to our agricultural economy. Can we really afford to allow
the decline of bees continue? Can you even put a financial value on the
"environmental service" provided by bees?

In my opinion, this is one of the questions that will be debated until the sun burns out. Meanwhile, the free market is where values are supposed to be assigned. Not by special interest groups seeking government subsidies (read: they want my money to pay for their problems). 

If pollinators are required to produce fruit, and people want fruit, then pollinators will have a cash value. Otherwise, the value is pure conjecture. Equally, if people want natural areas and pollinators are part of that, we will have to pay for the purchase and maintenance of conservation zones (which I fully support).

Almond growers KNOW they need bees, and pay dearly for them. A lot of apple growers think they can get native bees to do the job (or the bees rented by a neighbor grower). If that's true, why should they not do it? But if they want native bee restoration, they should help by taking acreage out of production to provide habitat (read: they pay for it, one way or another).

Prices are set by supply and demand. There is no intrinsic value in nuts that makes raw peanuts sell at $3.50, almonds at $6, cashews at $10, and macadamias at $16. The consumer will pay for what they want. If they want fruit and nuts, they will pay for the pollination at market value. The idea that pollination should be subsidized by tax dollars is completely backwards. 

Pete

             ***********************************************
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