Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
Date: |
Sat, 4 Jan 2014 19:26:30 -0500 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Message-ID: |
|
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
From: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> what Peter considers a subsidy
> is otherwise known by most others as
> Crop Insurance Payments.
After a cursory review of one document, I'll support the use of the term
"subsidy" in this context.
If one can buy insurance through ELAP, and then declare losses "from CCD" as
one sees fit, without substantial proof, then the amount of the claims made,
minus the premiums paid would be a defacto subsidy.
But it is unclear if any premiums AT ALL need be paid by a migratory
pollination operation:
http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/elap_honeybee_11.pdf
http://tinyurl.com/m63uymw
"Honeybee Exception for Pollinators and Breeders
A honeybee breeder or a producer who uses bees as pollinators does not have
to meet the risk management purchase requirement to be eligible for honeybee
losses, if the producer (a) Does not have any other crop planted or
intended to be planted for harvest on the whole farm, excluding grazing; (b)
Has a risk in a honeybee pollination or breeding operation and; (c) Does
not produce honey for commercial use. A honeybee producer that meets this
criteria does not have to pay a buy-in fee equal to the applicable NAP
service fee or catastrophic risk protection plan fee to become eligible for
ELAP payments."
The above leads even the most ethical beekeeper to consider dividing his
operation into arms-length "pollination", and a "honey production" entities,
where only the strongest hives are leased to the honey production operation,
with leases that end and return of hives post-harvest. One then seems to be
able to avoid paying any premiums at all.
Further, if I declare all my losses to be due to "CCD", rather than
"weather", and maintain the posture that CCD is caused by or triggered by
systemic pesticides, the self-reported "losses" declared to the USDA FSA
become "documented evidence" for what may be the true motivation - an
eventual damage civil claim against a deep-pockets corporate defendant.
So it isn't just a "subsidy" it is also a way to "launder" losses as fodder
for the eventual class-action suit.
And this is merely as "creative" as I can get during halftime.
Back to KC vs Indy...
***********************************************
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
|
|
|