Lloyd Spear said:
> I am sorry that... others felt I was attacking migratory operations.
It is interesting that comments that are clearly NOT "an attack" result
in over-reaction, prompting an apology where one was not required.
Maybe we have stumbled onto something here.
Just as an intellectual exercise, let's see how "migratory operations"
might stand up to an actual "attack". (This is a test, this is only a test.
There is no need for any over-reaction or Ad Hominem retaliation.)
As an extreme example, let's assume that Dr. Evil (from the 'Austin Powers'
movies) has noticed both the increased prices for honey, and the strong
demand for pollination, and decides to get into beekeeping in the USA.
He gets into migratory beekeeping, since this is what other larger
US beekeepers do.
"If I run 10,000 hives, I can make..."
(dramatic chord)
"...ONE MILLION dollars!"
(raises pinky to corner of mouth)
So, let's take the paraphrased statements of a "typical and rational"
migratory beekeeper as offered by Lloyd, and allow Dr. Evil to adopt
them as his own philosophy.
Let's pick Lloyd as an example of a non-migratory beekeeper with
apiaries near the area where Dr. Evil will pollinate crops.
> His attitude is that he has to make a living.
Exactly why is Dr. Evil entitled to "make a living" keeping bees?
How is he entitled to "make a living" when doing so increases
costs and reduces production for those who are affected by
contamination from Dr. Evil's operation, those who might LIKE
to be able to quit their day jobs, and make even a small income
as full-time beekeepers?
Is Dr. Evil MORE entitled to "make a living" than someone who stays
"local", like a Lloyd?
Is Dr. Evil entitled to "make a living" at the expense of someone
who stays "local", like a Lloyd?
> He feels as if he runs a first-class operation, but any operation
> as large as his will reflect the conditions where he keeps bees.
> Which is all over.
Let's examine this highly creative rationalization.
How is introducing a pest or disease (let's use SHB as an example) to a
new area any different from any other form of "pollution"? How is it
any different from simply crushing the hives of non-migratory beekeepers
with the wheels of his truck? How is it different from a pesticide kill?
How wide a swath of destruction can Dr. Evil leave in his wake before
someone complains? How much destruction can Dr. Evil do before those
affected put two and two together?
While it is understandable that no approach can assure 100% certainty
in the fight against pests and diseases, and no beekeeper can expect
to avoid "the conditions" in his area, what happens when "the conditions"
of concern were created and delivered by Dr. Evil himself?
> Because he 'has' to migrate he is likely to spread pests and disease,
> and that is just the way it is. More or less...these are his words,
> they are not an apology but an explanation.
Well, at least Dr. Evil does not deny that he is more likely to spread
pests and diseases as he drags his hives around.
But Dr. Evil CHOOSES to migrate, an opportunistic and deliberate exploitation
of an artificial situation unique to the 20th Century "developed nations"
(large monocultures and cheap fuel prices), one that may not exist for much
longer.
One cost-savings that Dr. Evil enjoys is that he avoids some large fraction of
his "overwintering costs" by hiring a trucker to haul his bees away from
"winter".
Another of the cost-saving advantages that Dr. Evil enjoys is that he does NOT
have to make any effort to control pests and diseases beyond his own estimate
of his own "economic threshold". Beekeepers who are affected by his decision
to "go migratory" are forced to pay costs that he has "externalized".
(Or in plain English, "imposed upon other beekeepers".)
Should migratory beekeepers be held to a standard more strict than
non-migratory beekeepers? If they aren't, what happens over time?
Since we are dealing with Dr. Evil here, let's consider the usual
motivation of all evil masterminds - "world domination".
As long as fuel remains cheap, Dr. Evil's plan would logically be to
suppress the development of competition in the form of local pollinating
beekeepers and large non-migratory honey producers in multiple ways:
a) By making assurances that he will deliver large numbers of
hives under a single contract, and then playing the growers
off against regulatory officials who might try to impose a
quarantine to protect the area from diseases and/or pests.
b) By offering such large numbers of hives from a single source,
Dr. Evil also reduces the price paid for pollination hives,
and thereby discourages the forming of pollination co-ops where
multiple beekeepers might pool their hives and meet the needs
of one or more nearby growers. (While offering lower prices via
economies of scale is not "unfair competition" in itself, it
does tend suppress competition. Look at Wal-Mart's effect on
locally-owned and managed stores.)
c) By spreading pests and diseases that would otherwise not appear
in the area, raising costs and hive losses for potential competitors
who might otherwise be able expand and satisfy the pollination demand
with local hives.
d) By creating a situation where migration to warmer climates for
"overwintering" becomes a REQUIRED aspect of beekeeping, so that
the stresses of diseases and pests are not combined with the stress
inherent in "overwintering", a fatal combination.
e) By dismissing out of hand any approach to disease and pest control
tailor-made for his unique way of keeping bees (which means that
he can dismiss an effective, but labor-intensive approach to
controlling pests and diseases as "impractical", when what it
really is nothing but "more costly" (i.e., might require hives to
be looked at more than once per fiscal quarter).
f) Since Dr. Evil "makes a living" keeping bees, he fights honey imports
from other countries, even though the beekeepers in those other
countries ALSO "make a living" keeping bees, and produce honey that
is cheaper than Dr. Evil's honey simply because they are willing
(or forced by circumstance) to accept a much lower standard of living
than Dr. Evil would.
Wow, Dr. Evil can become the ONLY beekeeper of any size in short order!
But is Dr. Evil strictly liable for the environmental damage he causes?
Likely not. Proof is hard to come by, and the henchmen of Dr. Evil can
make sure that not a word is spoken in criticism of Dr. Evil by repeating
the mantra "Dr. Evil is one of the biggest beekeepers on the planet",
attempting to preserve the artificial perception of a connection between
"size of operation" and "quality of operations". Dr. Evil's henchmen can
even browbeat Lloyd into APOLOGIZING for daring to even appear to question
the impact of Dr. Evil's attempts to make a profit on Lloyd's attempt to
also make a profit.
In actual fact, Dr. Evil hires henchmen to do the actual beekeeping work,
and still other henchmen to drive the trucks, so even if someone were to
complain loudly, Dr. Evil could simply blame "an employee's error", and
fire a henchman or two to placate the outraged, and avoid regulation.
Dr. Evil need never even see a hive. Dr. Evil need not even leave his lair
on some remote island. Dr. Evil need never pick up a hive tool.
That's what would happen if Dr. Evil got into beekeeping.
Would he make "one MILLION dollars"? Likely not - the margins are very slim,
and the risks are high. Would he make more money than he would cost others?
I'm not sure. He might, then again, he might not.
Next week, we'll look at how St. Francis of Assisi might get into "migratory
beekeeping", and compare.
jim (Its PARODY. Laugh! Any similarity between this
parody and your reality is completely intentional.)
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
|
