Jim, and all,

 Jim, could you please remind me where you found proof that the following 
statement is true?   “Now remember, this sort of advocacy has been directly 
responsible for the EXTINCTION of at least two kinds of bumblebees…”    
Since I find your conclusion regarding the paper in question to be totally 
erroneous, I can not assume that this conclusion, which seems a little far 
fetched at face value, is not erroneous as well. Two possible sources of 
error exist in your above statement, 1) Are the advocacies that you are 
lumping together in this statement truly in alignment with each other as 
you say?  And 2) Did the extinction in question really happen for the 
reasons you state?

Now for the reasons that I find your conclusion that the paper at 
http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_action.
html
to be way wrong.  

THE COATTAILS:
"The recent widespread loss of honey bee colonies from Colony Collapse 
Disorder (CCD) has received a lot of media coverage. Major media outlets 
across the US have covered this story including the NY Times, the CBS 
Nightly News, and the Christian Science Monitor. At this time the cause of 
CCD remains a mystery. It may be one or more factors, such as parasitic 
mites, disease, pesticides or diet."

** A simple statement of fact.

THE HOOK USED TO RIDE THE COATTAILS:

"No matter what the cause of these declines, many scientists feel that 
native pollinators - specifically, native bees - can be an insurance policy 
for honey bee scarcity."

**Again, a statement of fact.  I fail to see anything scary or sneaky about 
stating facts.

THE RATIONALE FOR RIDING:

"The European honey bee is the most important single crop pollinator in the 
United States. However, with the decline in the number of managed honey bee 
colonies from diseases, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees - as well as 
from Colony Collapse Disorder - it is important to increase the use of 
native bees in our agricultural system."

**I read that as; To the extent that honey bees do not fulfill a 
pollination need in agriculture that native pollinators can, agriculture 
can benefit from a strong alternative source of pollination in the form of 
native pollinators.  I feel that to read it as a statement of a goal to go 
head to head with beekeepers at the expense of beekeepers is baffling.
  
You say; “you can't ignore that the best summary of the quoted in context 
statements is "Kick 'em When They're Down".  

  Sorry, Jim, I find that conclusion just plain wrong and yes paranoid does 
come to mind. You are reading something into it that is not there.
The paper referred to above deals with the importance of providing habitat 
for native pollinators in order, when possible, to benefit farmers.  I am 
unclear as to how providing habitat for a native creature constitutes 
exploitation of it.  I guess if we benefit from it you could say we exploit 
it.  Anyway, we beekeepers may be on shaky ground arguing against the 
exploitation of insects.  

Anyway, I appreciate being able to argue the point with you.

Steve Noble  

   
  

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