Greetings,
Gordon Scott wrote:
> Paul van Westendorp writes;
> > David,
> >
> > Don't apologize to the non-American readers!
>
> I agree although I understand why he did.
>
> Senator Coats statement reflects an attitude that is far too
> common. If we hear world-wide about these views then at least we
> can form a collective front. UK funding for research in
> beekeeping is low and falling, beekeepers are now expected to make
> *donations* (addmitedly small) to keep certain research areas
> running. But then as so many non-beekeepers know, bees are just
> useless pests and beekeepers don't do any work -- our bees do it
> all for us and we just take the honey. :-|
>
> Regards,
> --
> Gordon Scott [log in to unmask] Compuserve 100332,3310
> [log in to unmask]
> Basingstoke Beekeeper [log in to unmask]
>
This is my first contribution to BEE-L, though I have been reading it for
months. I suppose I am going to get flamed to a cinder for what I am
about to write, but after reading several of the posts on this topic
I feel it is time for a dissenting voice.
First of all, I love beekeeping, and have the highest regard for it,
both as a profession and as a hobby. But I sense a great deal of tunnel-
vision in the posts of the many distinguished folks we have heard from.
Sure, beekeeping has it's problems, from AHB to mites to pesticides to
regulation, and research will need to be done if these problems are going
to be solved. But let me ask the fundamental question none of you have
asked, "What business does the government have in funding research for
a private industry"?
If the beekeeeping industry needs government money for research to solve
it's problems, then so does every industry. Every industry has it's needs.
Should the government fund research on apple trees, corn, soybean, lettuce,
or every other crop anyone grows for a living? Each has it's own specific
problems it is trying to solve. What about the non-agriculture businesses.
The glass industry, the paint industry, the steel industry, the fishing
industry, the automobile industry, the list is in the thousands. Should
the government fund research for every industry in the country? If so, how
could we afford it? And if not, why does beekeeping rate and the others
don't?
Surely if you can remove your blinders for a second you can see that the
beekeeping industry is only a small part of a very large economy. Every
industry in the nation spends part of it's profits toward research to solve
it's problems and improve it's product. Beekeeping is not unique in this.
Someone said, (paraphrasing) "The beekeeping research budget is only $5
million, and what is that compared to the size of the whole government
budget?" But have you ever read the budget in detail? There are a few
big-ticket items like service on the debt and Social Security, but a lot
of the budget is taken up by a huge stack of $5 million (or amounts in that
order of magnitude) grants to do a bunch of things that are only there
because some small industry lobbyed a congressman who snuck them in, in the
hopes of buying a few votes.
Read the Constitution. The government is not in the bee research business,
nor should it be. One of the reasons 30% of our federal taxes goes to
pay interest on the national debt is because every congressman fights to
preserve a bunch of projects year after year. Did you know $86 million
of our taxes last year (I think that amount is correct) went to maintain
a helium reserve set up back during WWII when dirigibles had some military
value? That money is still spent, year after year, because the congressman
in the state where the money gets spent fights for it. He is afraid of his
reelection possibilities if he doesn't.
Now I am NOT saying the research isn't important. It just isn't a government
function. I happen to agree with the real point Senator Coats was trying
to make, and that is that the government should stop doing research, and
let the individual industries that care perform the research themselves.
That would have several advantages:
1) You (as part of a trade organization that sponsored the research) would at
least have a vote about how the money was spent.
2) You could more directly participate in the research yourself, too, and
have more ready access to the researchers and the results.
3) Your local trade organization could opt to spend money on a project of local
interest, that might be funded by a national program. Again, it's your money,
so you can do what you want.
4) No government lobbyists to pay.
5) None of the money would be wasted on government bureaucracy selecting and
monitoring the projects and refereeing the fights over who gets how much.
6) Our tax money would be saved, so either our taxes would go down (not likely)
or the debt would go down (more likely). Either way is a good thing.
I am not picking on beekeeping. Really. I would NOT want to see government
research cut for beekeeping while leaving everything else the same. What I
am talking about is the role of government as a whole. If all these
government functions were just eliminated, and consequently picked up by
the various groups that cared about them, the research would be much more
effective.
To many of you this discussion is of a political nature and way outside the
central issues of beekeeping. Sorry. I don't mean to waste anyone's time.
Just one man's opinion.
John
*******************************************************************************
* John D. Schneider Internet: [log in to unmask] *
* Monsanto Company Telephone: (314)537-6808 *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* "No sciences are better tested than the religion of the Bible." *
* - Sir Isaac Newton *
*-----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
* Disclaimer: If you think I am a spokesperson for the Monsanto Company, its *
* subsidiaries, management, or lackeys, you are sadly mistaken. *
*******************************************************************************
|
