Peter said:
>I don't know how many on this list are old enough to remember the indemnity
program, but it was
widely abused by beekeepers,

I would disagree and agree with what Jerry posted. All losses had to be
verified by a lab. I can not see how abuse would occur.

> as was the honey price support program. IMHO, not an appropriate
solution to beekeepers' problems.

True the price support was not the solution for beeks mainly because:

The price support was the brainchild of packers! The packers used their
influence to push though. I always like to share "the rest of the story"'

I sold bulk honey to packers in the middle thirty cent range and the tax
payer paid the difference up to in 1986 around sixty eight cents a pound.

Then the U.S. packer could buy honey at the same price as China honey . 
China was dumping but packers did not care as
they were buying the China honey cheap and ALSO U.S.. Honey.

it has taken 20 years to stop China dumping and get honey to the price we
think U.S. honey should sell for.

In order to rid ourselves of the packers grip we had to lose the price 
support and pressure the Bird amendment. Took us a long time but eventually 
beeks started to listen to what we were saying.

I voted against an honey packer honey board. I can tell stories about
packers.

bob


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

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