The article is typical media stuff, not well informed and pushing a point of view. For example, they write:

> In his opening remarks before Congress, [Jeff Pettis] focused on the threat posed by the varroa mite, often put forward by chemical company representatives as the main culprit behind bee deaths.

Yeah, because the chemical companies say this, it isn't true? Most authorities on bee health say this. No one is saying pesticides are the main source of bee decline, not even Lundgren:

> No one would describe them as the driver, says Lundgren, but they are significant, and the government doesn’t seem to want to do anything about them.

Actually, the government has shifted significantly on this issue. Certainly, the government "seems" to be concerned about them. 

See for yourself: https://www.epa.gov/pollinator-protection

Meanwhile, Monarch butterflies are experiencing a rebound:

Mexico’s monarch butterfly population makes a comeback. What happened?  "The population was expected to be up this winter due to favorable summer weather conditions in the monarch's U.S. breeding areas."

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0301/Mexico-s-monarch-butterfly-population-makes-a-comeback.-What-happened

[comment: in all of these discussions about population ebb and flow, people tend to forget that a lot is contingent upon uncontrollable variables, like the pesky weather]
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