Steve Noble wrote:
> At any rate, my question to you is, are any of the second two bulleted 
> statements you have quoted untrue, and if not then;  A) How so? and B) If 
> those statements ARE true, what else would you expect from a group which 
> advocates for the well being of native pollinators?, and C) How does 
> stating the truth about native pollinators constitute a STATED GOAL on the 
> part of the advocates of native pollinators to COMPETE with beekeepers?  In 
> other words how does it being “ad copy” make it anti beekeeping?  
Truth is truth but you certainly can twist it for whatever purpose you 
have in mind. Most NP are more efficient than honeybees, but that is 
about as far as it goes. They are not transportable in large numbers and 
they cannot pollinate large stands of crops even if they are stationary. 
The latter is because there are no additional nectar sources to sustain 
them after the crop is done flowering. Even NP like the leaf cutter bee 
do not give the farmer all that he needs so honeybees are brought in to 
supplement them.

It all gets down to two simple facts that are omitted from any NP 
information. Numbers and transportable. Honeybees can supply both and 
the NP neither for large scale agriculture.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
******************************************************