randy oliver wrote:

> Scapegoating of the native pollinator folk is not in the overall
> interest of the beekeeping industry.

I believe the native pollinator folks are already changing the
general thinking and perceptions of not only the general public,
but of university entomologists and biologists as well. Example:
When Boxer's Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 was recently
discussed on the [log in to unmask] one
entomologist, Doug Yanega, from the University of California
at Riverside commented 29 Jun 2007:

"Maybe the fact that these [native] pollinators are unaffected
by CCD is the very reason they're worth talking about? Maybe
practical agriculture could benefit from pollinators that don't
have to be rented from out-of-state every year, because it
could ultimately be more profitable for the growers?"

And another entomologist, Karl Magnacca, UC-Berkeley
commented 1 Jul 2007:

"Not to justify this kind of politicking, but one can reasonably
point out that the reason CCD could potentially be such a
crisis is that we are so dependent on honeybees alone,
due to farming practices that reduce native bee populations
and lack of research on semi-domestic use of native bees
in crops."

Thus I agree with Jim Fischer that advocates of native
pollinators tend to view beekeepers as "part of the problem"
and therefore it would not be in the best interest of beekeepers
and growers to form aliances with city folk based organizations 
and politicians that have an anti-industrialized agriculture agenda.

Paul Cherubini
El Dorado, Calif.

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