> Not that I oppose research, even pure 
> research, but how would you present 
> this to the taxpayer?

> I am surprised that I am "challenged" with a question having such an obvious answer.  

Not a challenge, really; just idle curiosity. However, I am surprised you trot out the tired litany of 30% losses being "unprecedented". Back in the 1970s I knew lots of desert beekeepers that lost far more than 50% of their hives in summer due to excessive heat, queen loss, etc. They moved them to the coast in winter, divided them and went back to the desert with all the hives ready to make honey again. 

Not only that, but for decades Canadian beekeepers gassed their hives, replaced them all every year and still made a fat profit. Even a schoolboy can tell you that if half your bees die over winter all you have to do is split them once to recoup the loss. However, a skilled beekeeper can split 1 for 10 or even 20 and still make a decent honey crop. Or else do even better selling bees to beekeepers in the city. 

Furthermore, we were told back in the 1950s and 1960s that if the country lost any more hives (there were 5 million then) pollination would suffer. The number fell to half that and pollination still gets done. I think the number of colonies to require the nations fruit and nut crops (excepting almonds) is no more than 2 million and could be done with one million if they were all mobilized. However, high honey prices tends to draw beekeepers away from pollination and toward the upper midwest where the big honey crops are made.

Dr. van Engelsdorp wrote in his PhD thesis
> A review of the historical bee literature suggests that large localized unexplained losses have occurred at least 20 times over the last 150 years. --  MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY IN THE BEE YARD (2011)

PLB

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