Thanks to Brian for bringing this slanted opinion piece
masquerading as news to our attention.

This is yet another example of the sort of drive-by journalism that 
CCD has been prompting, with assumptions piled up to make a 
platform high enough with which to jump to conclusions far beyond 
those accessible using mere facts and logic.

A few quotes and translations here.  I have copied the author of the 
article, and I will post any response (or abject apology) she offers 
in full.  The negative view of Congress offered bites the hands that 
may provide some significant funding to address the problems we face, 
so we need to distance ourselves from her opinion-loaded and 100% 
fact-free piece.

From the article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/18/MNBR107C59.D
TL

> "A new five-year farm bill under negotiation may spend a few million
dollars 
> saving bees, but definitely will spend billions on farm subsidy
policies that 
> contribute to their destruction."

Funny how specific policies are not listed as being harmful to honey
bees,
ditto for specific subsidies, isn't it?  A 100% fact-free claim.
Research?  
Fact Check? An exercise left to the reader, it seems.  Note that she did

not even mention HR 1709 or S.1694, which could provide funding much
more
promptly than the Farm Bill, and with far fewer fireworks.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1709
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1694

Note well that if not for the meddling of Barbara Boxer and the
native pollinator crowd, we would have had House and Senate bills
that matched each other, and voted upon promptly, rather than bills
that did not match, each "dying in committee".

> "The Bush administration is pushing hard to cut commodity subsidies
and 
> divert more funds to environmental and nutrition programs in the farm
bill." 

The "Bush administration" is not known for "diverting funds" TO 
"environmental and nutrition programs".  The Bush administration is more
likely to authorize exploratory oil drilling in your beeyard than to
bother
to think about the actual practical problems of the honey bee,
beekeeper,
and grower, let alone the environment or hungry kids.  

> "Congressional negotiators are pushing back to expand subsidies at the

> expense of these programs and want to raise more tax revenue to do
it."

I expect that the congresspersons doing the pushing would have a very
different explanation of their motivations and actions.  But the story
seems slanted - how could they both "expand subsidies AT THE EXPENSE OF"
other programs, and also "raise more tax revenue to do it"?  If they
are doing (A) "at the expense of" (B), then there would be no need to
also increase taxes, would there?  

> "On Capitol Hill, House and Senate negotiators are hammering out final

> details on a farm bill that will supercharge the industrialized crop 
> production that scientists believe weakens vital pollinators."

Uh, which scientists believe that, exactly?
It would be nice to name at least one, as there are none, to my
knowledge.
The consensus has firmly settled on a set of pathogens as the best
suspects
of the causes of CCD, and no "management practices" of ANY type have
been 
implicated as being even involved in Colony Collapse Disorder.  And if
she
is writing about the impact on other, so-called "native pollinators",
they aren't "vital" to anything, certainly not to agriculture.  

This sort of statement always annoys me, as "scientists believe" is a
clearly self-contradictory phrase.  Scientists base conclusions on data,

rather than on belief and faith, or we are not scientists at all!

> "Likely culprits of so-called colony collapse disorder are new
systemic 
> pesticides that are safer for humans but intentionally disrupt insect 
> neurology, causing memory loss and navigation failure."

Likely?  Culprit?  This sort of speculation has become less plausible
with every passing week.  Systemics were a "suspect" a year ago, but if 
there was any data that might support that suspicion, it would have
cropped up by now.  Like it or not, all we have is data that exonerates 
systemic pesticides, despite all the scrutiny.

> "It's all correlative at this point," said May Berenbaum, one of 
> the nation's top entomologists.

Yeah, it is, but one thing that does NOT correlate to the cases of 
CCD that have been sampled and studies is the use of any class 
of pesticides.  Everyone has looked at looked, and the evidence
just isn't there.

> Troy Fore, head of the American Beekeeping Federation, said the new 
> pesticides "don't so much kill them outright. They affect the things 
> insects need to be able to stay alive and make a living. They're safer

> for mammals, of course that's humans, but they're pretty bad on bees."

Wow, Troy said that?  Kinda strange, given that systemics have reduced
spray volumes and spray days and have directly resulted in reduced
bee kills.  I'm going to assume he was misquoted, as I can't imagine
Troy blaming something so blindly, moreso when it has reduced bee kills.
I'm certain that Troy is up-to-speed on the current findings of those
doing the grunt work on CCD.

> Other suspects are habitat loss,

Habitat loss?  This writer can't even keep native pollinators versus
honey bees straight!  Honey bees get CCD, native pollinators don't.
Native pollinators certainly suffer from habitat loss, but CCD has
nothing to do with loss of habitat.

> exotic pests and diseases, 

There ya go.  One rational statement, supported by the research
at hand.  It is the only one made in the entire article.

> and the rise of vast monocultures of single crops that create 
> "floral deserts" when not in bloom. 

This is exactly the same thing as "habitat loss", and while it
certainly is a problem for many animals and insects that might
otherwise live in these areas, it has nothing to do with CCD.

I could go on, but this is just a terribly sloppy piece of work, 
one that sheds no light at all, and only creates more heat and smoke.

For those who want a refresher on the facts surrounding CCD, 
I've got my archive here:
http://bee-quick.com/reprints

But note well - phases like "habitat loss" and "monoculture" have 
been twisted from a generic environmental concern into a "possible 
cause of CCD".  There isn't a single shred of evidence in support
of the suspicions, and there's lots of evidence to the contrary,
but I assure you that significant Farm Bill funding labeled 
"CCD Money" will be directed to address these purely
environmental and species preservation concerns.  

In fact, if you re-read the article, you find a list of things
that may well be bad for "native pollinators" (the ones that
do little or no pollination of any actual food crops) being
trotted out as if they had anything to do with CCD and/or
honey bees.

It is through these methods that the waters will be muddied
sufficiently to allow significant CCD funding will be diverted 
to research on insects not affected by CCD, and of, at best, 
only marginal or highly speculative value to agriculture.  
Thus, the alternative pollinator crowd will have achieved its goal 
of getting duplicate funding from both environmental and agricultural 
sources. And beekeepers and honey bees be damned.  We are merely the 
excuse they use to justify further research money that won't help us 
or agriculture one bit.

Reread the article - it cites a list of problems that have nothing
to do with CCD or honey bees, yet are of concern to those who wish
to preserve "native pollinator" species.  Who fed this lazy
reporter this nonsense?  Someone did.  Someone knew that she would
not check any of it against primary sources.

I warned everyone about this problem some time ago when I explained 
how this "Pollinator Protection Racket" was being set up a year ago.
http://listserv.albany.edu:8080/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0706E&L=BEE-L&P=R2&D=0&
I=-3&T=0

Yeah, I'll say it   -   "Told ya so."

****************************************************
* General Information About BEE-L is available at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/default.htm   *
****************************************************