Hi All,

This venue is presumably an "informed discussion" of beekeeping issues.
I appreciate that we can share facts and opinions, and then allow the 
readers to come to their own conclusions.
Lately, I've been getting a lesson on politics--something of which I know 
little, but am learning quickly!

The main issue of this thread appears to be whether native pollinator 
lobbyists were instrumental in delaying a simple emergency funding bill for 
CCD research, due to their "hijacking" of the bills, in attempts to insert 
funding for native pollinators.  Some on the List feel strongly that this 
occurred.  Perhaps it did, and if so, it should be rather easily verifiable. 
In my interviews of several of the major players, I could not verify that 
this happened.  However, I am always open to new facts.

Jim Fischer states accurately that somehow CCD funding focus got shifted 
from Agriculture to Natural Resources.  I totally agree with him that this 
is not the proper arena for an agricultural issue.  My question is, what 
occurred in the interim between the April USDA-ARS CCD meeting that he 
attended, and the June 26 Natural Resources pollinator hearings.  The June 
meetings were apparently set up well in advance, independent of CCD, and for 
different reasons.  They had nothing to do with the CCD issue, and 
beekeepers were invited almost as an afterthought, as I have previously 
detailed.

So the CCD research funding need was spelled out in March (in Hasting's 
bill), a list of research points detailed in April, and then next discussed 
at a late June "Birds and Bees" show.  What happened in the interim?  What 
were the beekeepers lobbyists doing from April 'til the end of June?  This 
is when we needed the emergency funding.

They key issue to me is--what happened to the emergency appropriation 
"expectations" after the Beltsville meeting?  Some apparently came away from 
the meeting expecting emergency funding for CCD research to be quickly made 
available.  I think that most on this list would have welcomed such funding, 
so that the CCD samples could be analyzed in a timely manner.  Jim Fischer 
was at that meeting, and might be able to clarify some issues for us.

1.  Who made any promises for emergency appropriations?
2.  Senator Hastings had already introduced HR1709 in March.  This bill 
authorized for appropriations for FY 2008.  Please correct me, but wouldn't 
that be beginning Oct 2007 at the earliest?
3.  Is there a bill that I haven't seen requesting emergency appropriations 
for 2007?
4.  Whose budget were those emergency appropriations going to come out of?

As bees were dying, the wheels of Congress turned slowly and messily.  Since 
the native pollinator folk already had a presence in Washington due to their 
upcoming National Pollinator Week and the associated trappings, they would 
of course approach, or be approached by, congressional staff.  So did they 
then hijack the bill?  I've gone over the bill, and searched out every 
instance of the word "native."  Native bees are mentioned 10 times, honey 
bees 13 times.  In most sentences, native bees are a minor addition, such as 
in "pollination by honey and native bees adds more than $18,000,000 annually 
to the value of United States crops."  There are only two stand alone 
instances of requests specifically for native bees:  "native bee crop 
pollination and habitat conservation" and "native bee taxonomy and ecology." 
These two instances are in a list of nine items referring mostly to 
honeybees.  Some mention of native pollinators would be expected in any 
case, due to the native pollinator researchers at ARS, Logan, Utah.

I just can't see how Jim comes to the conclusion that adding these two 
sentences "hijacked" a bill, or killed funding.

Here's the point:  Congress moves only when it's pushed.  Money has to be 
squeezed out, generally by pressure exerted by lobbyists who speak for 
groups of voters (read that "donors").  U.S. agricultural lobbyists are not 
pushing for honeybees--they don't feel the need.  Congressional staffs have 
a nebulous idea that there is some kind of problem with honeybees 
disappearing due to cell phones or something, but they aren't being pushed 
and educated by the bee industry.  The native pollinator people appear to be 
setting a fine example for the bee industry as to what a small group of 
dedicated individuals can effect politically--my hat's off to them.

I heartily agree with Aaron--let's stop whining and being paranoid, and, as 
an industry, write letters to our representatives, and donate money to our 
lobbyists to get our needs clearly spelled out to Congress.  This is clearly 
the way that things get done in Washington.  It appears to me that 
badmouthing a group with whom we have common interests is clearly not in our 
best interest as an industry.  It mixes messages up in Washington, and makes 
us look like whiners.  Politicians need to get a lot of people on board to 
get their train moving.  They want passengers who can get along.

The players in the beekeeping industry are notorious for being unable to 
work together to promote a common agenda.  I suggest that we try to focus 
upon letting Congress know that we are an integral part of the agricultural 
team, which includes orchardists, berry growers, seed growers, pesticide 
manufacturers and applicators, hobby and migratory beekeepers, and native 
pollinators.

Randy Oliver
All aboard?

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************