Aaron Morris's comments were concise and objective:  
 
We and other members of the CCD team are trying to resolve a  problem, not 
play police.  No one would be likely to ask any of us to come  look at CCD 
colonies if they thought we were going to report/turn them in.   Only a small 
number of affected beekeepers have been brave enough to publicly  admit to having a 
problem.  Who wants to rent colonies for pollination or  buy queens or 
packages from someone who may have CCD?  Just look  at the recent posts on Bee-L.
 
And, no one knows if CCD is a disease, so there's no authority to stop  
shipments AND no justifiable reason - can you jeopardize a beekeeper's business  
just because he/she might have an unknown, unproven disease?  and - Is  it 
possible that 'surviving' queens and bees MIGHT be the ones you want  (possibly CCD 
resistant?).  And if its a pesticide or environmental toxin,  its a local 
problem, and non-contagious unless you buy nucs with  contaminated wax or food 
stores - a transport and fate, not a disease  problem.   All in all, far too 
many unknowns.
 
Jim Fischer's comments are also correct - this was in some cases a  
self-correcting problem.
 
And, Bob Harrison has an important point, the only sure way to avoid  
problems is to produce your own, healthy bees and queens.  Gosh, Aaron,  Jim, and  
Bob all more or less in agreement - that may be historic.
 
Now, in terms of who paid for studies, etc.  Most of the members of  the CCD 
working group come from federal government or state government (state  
inspection services) or academic institutions.  Most of the federal and  state folks 
can't charge for their services, since they are paid to do this  work as part 
of their job description.  Academics may draw on their  institutional salaries 
to do this work, but many can and do charge for  additional 'research' 
services (usually as grants, etc. that either provide  summer salaries - not 
provided by their institution, or as some form allow them  to buy out some of their 
university salary time).  Some academics  moonlight as consultants, over and 
above their university job.  However,  many institutions disallow or make this 
very difficult.  However, I don't  think any university person has gotten much, 
and I know that most haven't  received any money to work on CCD.
 
We at Bee Alert research work on many projects through the University  (the 
basic research is done at the UM, such as our landmine and laser  technology 
work), but we also work on applied problem solving via our University  
affiliated small business.  Bee Alert Tech is a private business, and we do  conduct 
contract work, where the client who hires us owns the data.
 
Our CCD work has been conducted under the auspices of this business,  Bee 
Alert Technology, Inc. - much of it on our own nickel, some on donations,  the 
acoustic sampling under government funds, and some of the work as  consultants, 
with new work that is being done under an award from  the NHB to look at the 
chemistry of samples that have been sitting in  freezers.  
 
These bee/pollen/comb samples have been awaiting  external funding, since it 
costs significant amounts of money to  conduct/contract the specialized 
chemical analysis needed to look for an  unknown, yet possibly repellant or toxic 
chemical  in the CCD  colonies than might account for the absence of robbing, 
invasion by pests.  
 
We DO NOT have the answer to this question, not because, as Ames Farms  says 
- 'this defies science', but simply because we've only recently acquired  
sufficient funds to launch this work.  The first priority for funding of  CCD 
projects was given, and rightly so, to providing for the  search for viruses (at 
PSU) and pesticides (also at PSU) - and work at  Beltsville.  We were lucky 
enough to get some of the additional,  later money from the Honey Board, but 
getting contracts in place and a  payment schedule has taken time.
 
In addition, the survey work and some of our sampling and inspections were  
conducted under private funds - which allows us to better protect  
confidentiality, like a doctor/patient or lawyer/client.  It seems to be a  good decision, 
because contrary to the comments from Ames Farms, about " the  secretive 
nature of some migratory keepers.. and why would anyone  believe... answers 
concerning their operations, ... the chemical  inputs", we have gotten very candid 
and extensive responses to these questions,  including the frequency of use of 
off-label materials.  In fact,  that's one of the things that has slowed our 
ability to analyze the data -- we  have more information than we can quickly 
process, and far longer lists of  substances than we ever imagined.  We do note 
that many of our  respondents checked a box indicating that we COULD NOT share 
their answers with  state regulatory folks, and some didn't want their 
information to be shared by  anyone, not even the CCD Working group. 
 
So, things are not simple.  If the contrasting inputs/pressures that  we have 
been receiving mean anything, we must be doing something right.  On  the one 
hand, we have beekeepers and associations lobbying us to ADD their state  in 
case agricultural disaster funds are released, while at the same time, we  have 
beekeepers and states lobbying us to DELIST their state because we may  be 
adversely affected pollination rentals and sales of bees and  queens.  And some 
of these folks are very vocal and passionate.  We do  our best to call things 
as based on the data that we have at hand.  We also  are trying to be careful 
to avoid setting off unwarranted panics, such as  boycotting specific 
beekeepers or states.
 
Jerry
 
 
 
 



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.

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