In a message dated 3/9/00 10:43:55 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< I'd prefer not to speak in wild sweeping generalities.  I'd sure like to
see
some data and specific examples to back up the rather general and
unsubstantiated claims being made. >>

   On the competition topic, you back up your claims with "The simple fact,"
"I have understood," "This is particularly true," and "We don't need refereed
research to know that." This seems like bait and switch to start a discussion
in "plain speak" and then raise the standards to hard scientific evidence.
   But there is another aspect of this topic that disturbs me greatly, and
that could get lost in the debate over who has the "hardest" science of all,
and that is the political behavior of native pollinator advocates. In "The
Forgotten Pollinators," Nabhan and Buchmann talk of "blond" honey bees
conquering, colonizing and eliminating the natives, "reshaping the land in
the Image of Northern Europe." This is the language of political theater and
can be dismissed as such, but the metaphor will be effective in pushing and
pulling people emotionally into making snap judgements based on their
emotions, not the hard science.
    The language also contains an ugly slur against beekeepers that places
them in the same boat with racists, colonialists, and other purveyors of
reprehensible philosophies, while claiming the moral high ground for the
champions of native pollinators.
    If a beekeeper stands up in front of an audience and raises reasonable
objections, that beekeep already has two emotional strikes against him due to
this just-below-belt political imagery. And how will your conservation-minded
and environmentally conscious customers respond to this argument? They may
hear good points raised on both sides—and drop honey off the shopping list
just to be sure.
   The authors imply a political dychotomy between conservationists and
environmentalists on one side, and beekeepers as agents of environmental
degradation on the other. They liken the rancor in Australia to that of
EarthFirst and the Wise Use movement here in the US. The native pollinator
advocates are hoping to launch a "social movement." Nabhan and Buchmann
"prophesy" that someday beekeeping will be viewed with as much disdain as
cowboying (whatever that is).
  My point is, this is not an argument that is going to be carried on hard
science alone. Tactics of persuasion are needed and another good political
metaphor, and that's why I say the honey bee is not a colonizer but an
immigrant, hard working and productive, taking its foragely largely from
introduced species, with some exceptions. The native pollinator advocates are
engaging in a form of immigrant bashing, a clever juxtaposition of national
chauvinism with conservationism and environmentalism. The honey bee is an
easy target because its appearance is different enough that even a child can
distinguish it from the other pollinators (native and introduced) in the
garden. Their argument, like most political arguments, is riddled with sloppy
references, contradictions and lies by omission.
John Mitchell