Hi All,
Thanks to all those who have written me in support for researching this
issue!
I have personally written Jim Fishcher and apologized if I have offended him
in any way. I think that Jim is a brilliant analyst and an asset to the
beekeeping community. I'm out of the loop in bee politics, and generally
find the subject distasteful, this case being no exception!
I've posted my findings on this topic, and am not convinced that the native
pollinator folk hijacked our CCD emergency funding--its failure to date
seems to be a casualty of fiscal limitations, and lack of lobbying by the
bee industry. I also don't see that they'd overloaded the bills designed to
help beekeepers. Indeed, not only do I not see that we have any axe to
grind with them, they appear to have used their influence in Washington to
help beekeepers.
The statements made by Congressman Blumenauer appeared to be overstated, but
essentially truthful--a mix of pollinators does help to maintain healthy
ecosystems and result in better pollination, a huge amount of pollination is
indeed effected by native bees, native bees as a group are indeed more
versatile than honeybees, and we are indeed at risk in agriculture when we
rely wholly on any single species of crop or pollinator (just ask the almond
growers).
On the other hand, the honeybee is by far the most manageable species of
pollinator since it is a generalist, exhibits species fidelity, transfers
pollen from bee to bee within the hive, and can be delivered upon demand at
any time to any crop. A number of agricultural crops are nearly entirely
dependent upon migratory beekeepers. I make my living as such by charging
for pollination, and do not feel threatened by competition from native
pollinators.
> The testimony tends to give the clear impression that a "solution" to CCD
> is to simply start using other bees, native bees. Somehow, it undercuts
> the simple message that some short-term funds are needed for addressing
> CCD. If nothing else, it is certainly a distraction.
Jim's point is well taken, although the congressional staff I spoke to did
not appear to have been distracted. This again illustrates the importance
of the wording of our statements.
At this point I would like to express my ignorance again. I have not spoken
to any native pollinator groups. I know that they at least sometimes read
these posts. I think that this might be a good time for them to clarify
their positions, if they wish to. Not in response to Jim, nor
argumentatively, but simply so we can see if beekeepers and the native
pollinator folk can work together or not. They have been notably silent
during this debate (and I hardly blame them). Would you please speak up
now?
Specifically:
1. As I stated before, it's generally accepted that honeybees can disrupt
ecosystems by pollinating exotic weeds, and by competing with native
pollinators for resources. Given that, do the NP groups have any problem
with accepting honeybees as a vital component of American agriculture?
2. Is your position to replace honeybees in agriculture with native
pollinators, or simply to generate recognition of the contributions already
made by them?
3. Are you promoting commercial exploitation of native pollinators, or is
your intent to simply help them to exist in the wild?
4. I've already posted to this List that Coevolution Institute was
instrumental in helping beekeepers present their case in the recent Senate
hearings. Also, my opinion that habitat improvement for native pollinators
would likely benefit beekeepers as well. Do your organizations feel that
your goals are at odds with beekeepers, or do you feel that we can work
together?
5. Is there discussion going on between your organizations and beekeepers
organizations to coordinate our efforts politically? If not, are you open
to such coordination?
Randy Oliver
Hoping this thread ends soon!
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
