>The efforts of the "native pollinators" in this area of inquiry are 
>cynical, self-serving, and fraudulent.

A little harsh, Jim!  I know some of these people, and they sure don't fit 
the above description.

Looking at pollinators in general helps with the larger picture, and, in 
general, what's good for native pollinators is good for honeybees.

In order to get a broader base of support in Congress, it may help to 
broaden the bill to be more inclusive.  There are a number of commercial 
crops that can do just fine with, or are augmented by, native (or non 
honeybee) pollinators--apples, blueberries, squash, sunflowers, and alfalfa 
come to mind.

The problem to agriculture is only indirectly due to CCD.  It is directly 
due to fear of inadequate pollination, from whatever species.

I'm a commercial beekeeper, and my income depends upon honeybees.  If the 
almond growers were to find a native pollinator, it might put me out of 
business.  However, I'm also a citizen of this planet, and don't mind 
sharing some space with the native pollinators.

I don't know the history of the bill, but there are those who feel that CCD 
is a natural phenomenon that will likely recur, and then "disappear" again. 
Those of this bent may feel that throwing truckloads of taxpayer dollars at 
chasing the elusive cause might be a waste of said taxpayers' dollars. 
However, using taxpayer dollars to better understand the scope of 
pollination issues in the current bill might be wiser.  As the Xeres guy 
stated:  "This bill can help to improve crop security and the sustainability 
of agriculture, by helping farmers in the United States diversity their 
pollinator portfolio."

Randy Oliver

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