BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
randy oliver <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 23 Aug 2016 08:43:15 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines)
Thank you Charlie for answering ET's question so eloquently : )

Papers that claim to lay the blame for pollinator "decline" on neonics
invariably get published and then spun into calls for action; ground based
observations of reality (such as yours) aren't sexy enough to get attention.

I've been in correspondence of late with the author of "Increasing
neonicotinoid use and the declining butterfly fauna of lowland California,"
 pointing out that they completely overlooked a major variable that far
better correlates with butterfly decline in the region than does the
minimal  application of neonics (based upon actual pesticide use reports).

-- 
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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2