Recently folks from Xerces wrote:

> The Xerces Society is not 'anti-honey bee' and we have no plans to advocate for regulating the interstate movement of honeybees. 

This is in direct contradiction to their own published studies which clearly target honey bees as non-native and pathogen carriers that impinge on the natives. It is all well and good for the folks at Xerces to say that they are not anti-honey bee but I would like to see some more serious commitments. 

For example, the honey bee is conspicuous by its absence in their petition. I would like to see assurances that the honey bee would not be scapegoated as the pathogen vector that it appears to be in the publications. There is simply no hard evidence that native bees got diseases from honey bees, although they do share common maladies. Further, they are pitting the conservation of a relatively scarce species against very large economic concerns, which could lead to serious financial hardship on beekeepers, fruit and nut growers and consumers. This has to be fully justified.

I think we should be working together, as they have also vowed to do. And yet, not one of my questions has been answered even though I have written to many of the authors of these documents. Unless you call the above statement a sufficient response, which I don't. 

Peter Borst

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

Access BEE-L directly at:
http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-LSOFTDONATIONS.exe?A0=BEE-L