BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Andy Nachbaur <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 26 Feb 1998 18:08:51 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (110 lines)
At 07:16 PM 2/26/98 -0500, you wrote:
 
> My friend Troy Fore said.....
 
>I have resisted posting replies to some of the off-the-wall comments on
>the proposal to expand the Honey Board because of the title of the BEE-L:
 
>>Date:    Wed, 25 Feb 1998 14:26:10 EST
>>From:    Hervey Heywood <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: 2 cent board.....
 
>..... pushed my button too hard. He posted, on behalf of Joe Rowland:
 
>Briefly, under the proposal, producers (and importers) will continue to
>pay 1-cent, but packers will now also pay 1-cent. Should they continue to
>get off without paying?
 
I just wonder who is getting off with what, and who is paying what, if the
producer pays and the packer pays, it looks to me like maybe it's the
producer who is going to be paying and paying and then the question becomes
paying for what, deeper pile in the carpets?
 
>The increased regulation will be in the form of keeping malefactors from
>diluting their honey with corn syrup and gaining an unfair advantage over
>everyone else
 
The last time I checked this was well covered under the Federal, and State
Rules, Regulations, and Laws we have today. Maybe if there is a problem the
appropriate Federal or State agency should be consulted. Surely the
additional taxing of one's self should not make a difference when it comes
to law enforcement.
 
>not to mention risking the reputation legitimate honey
>producers and packers have nurtured over the centuries.
 
Why would this risk be different by taxing beekeepers more or less? Maybe
if Opra gets hold of some of that bad honey she will do a show on how bad
beekeepers are mis-treating their bees but that's not new news as anyone
who uses the Internet can find out in a short session of searching,
 
> An important part of the proposal mandates the Honey Board spends *at
least* 8% of its
 
>annual revenues for beekeeping research. Not honey marketing research --
>not new product research -- *beekeeping* research. Under the proposal 8%
>would be about $500,000.
 
That is nice and I can guarantee that all well be spent, and all will be
back for more, as beekeeping research funding is the original black hole.
If anyone can name 10 useful beekeeping tools, management schemes, PC
software, or any other useful beekeeping advancement recognized and used by
a bare majority of US beekeepers as being the product of so called "public
funded" beekeeping" research in the last 20 or even 30 years I will do my
best to match the $500,000. myself. I am sure all of this pie in the sky
"beekeeping" research money will end up replacing tax payer funded programs
and I am for that but not if I have to replace it with my own limited funds
after writing that big $500,000 check I am a little short.
 
>There is no way the beekeepers can lose control of the Honey Board.
>Producer members have to hold 50% of the seats. The proposal has been
>endorsed by American Beekeeping Federation, American Honey Producers
>Association, National Honey Packers and Dealers Association, and Sioux
>Honey Association.
 
Except for the honey Packers and Stealers I have over the years belonged to
all of the above and there endorsement of new taxes, new regulations, and
new ways to spend the other guys money is well known to those in the
beekeeping industry. Its sad but true that what they say about proposed
laws has not always turned out to be the way it is was in the real world.
 
>Finally, it will have to endorsed by the assessment-paying members of the
>industry before it goes into effect. The legislation in Congress simply
>lets it come to a vote of the industry. Ask yourself: Why don't the
>opponents want to allow the industry to vote on the proposal? After a
>thorough airing at the ABF Convention, it was endorsed unanimously.
 
>Let's let the people who will be paying the bill decide.
 
Maybe there is a reason why these things are political and not left up to
the heavy weights in the bee industry alone to decide, at least the so
called opposition or better put the "minority" gets a voice when it comes
to Congress in the USA and you don't even have to be a honey producer. I
think it's called Democrazy or something like that. If all the above
organizations have all this industry support then why even have a
government program. If together we all truly believe then there is no
reason to involve the government to spend anyone's money other then our own
and we would not have to read the "off the wall" comments of any beekeepers.
 
IMHO, I honestly believe that their is little fiscal justification for even
the mandatory honey money that is spent now and because of it private label
promotion is greatly retarded in the US, and national brand recognition is
held by one label...SUE BEE, and they can't compete with the importers and
the generic honey promotion which is not fair as they have to pay the same
and then pay to promote their own domestic production and label.
 
ttul,  the OLd Drone
"If your crop doesn't come in, swim out to it!" El Nino
 
 
>If you want more information, check out the ABF website: abfnet.org or
>contact me for more information.
 
>Troy Fore
>Executive Director
>American Beekeeping Federation
>P.O. Box 1038, Jesup, GA 31598-1038
>Ph. 912-427-4233  Fax 912-427-8447
>Email:  [log in to unmask]
>Home Page: http://www.abfnet.org

ATOM RSS1 RSS2