> This is a key point.  I feel that we must have protection of pollinators
> written into law.  Then that law would indeed restrict some of the
> practices of farmers.  But it would be by vote of the electorate, not by
> the beekeepers alone.
>

Perspective.

We look at the issue from the beekeepers side. The farmer looks at cost and
safety, not to bees but to themselves and their families. Pollinators, if
needed, are a cost.

Let us look at "protection of pollinators". Let's make farmers provide a
pollinator habitat.

We want bee forage between crop rows. The farmer looks at the risk and
cost. That forage comes at a cost both literally and figuratively. The
forage requires upkeep (interesting reads on the different weedkillers to
use) or it will revert to weeds. It can be both beneficial to the farmer
since it can house pest predators, but it can also be a harbor for pests as
well as contaminants carried by rodents and birds that can be deposited on
raw veggies and cause serious harm to humans.(Lots of good studies on this
most of which are ambivalent because of the good and the bad.) So do you
want to plant forage and risk a multimillion lawsuit because of salmonella
or E-Coli or keep it all clean and disease and rodent/bird free?

Instead of protection of pollinators, why not protection of farmers who
seem to be in greater danger than beekeepers.

As far as "vote of the electorate", it would more likely come through
regulatory bodies since they now govern us. Just ask your local legislator
- "Sorry, but that is an EPA/FDA/DOA/.... issue. You should talk to them."

As the chair of the City Zoning Board, I speak from experience.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine

             ***********************************************
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