> Well, I watched the PBS special on CCD, which was really about 
> honeybees disappearing world wide. So, according to them, by 
> 2035 we will have no more honeybees if the current trend 
> continues. I have no idea what they based that on.

So, exactly what part of "media" was unclear to you?  :)

I also have no idea.  It was the worst "Nature" program I've
seen in a long time. Most "Nature" programs are of sufficient
quality and accuracy to be assigned as "homework" in high-school 
and college level "survey" courses in the sciences.  Not this one.

> What was most interesting was how "CCD" has become the catch-all 
> for anything that is happening where bees have problems.

Yes, we get the message. Filmmakers are often even worse 
than "the press".  

Worse yet, I went to see a preview of "Bee Movie" last night,
and the sole depiction of beekeepers was as evil henchmen
actually snickering about how they steal honey from bees.
Smoke from a smoker is depicted as having the same impact
on bees as a combination of tear gas and chloroform.
It was entertainment, and I laughed and enjoyed the story.
But it even had bee hives that looked like wasp nests.
No expense was spared to animate popular misconceptions.

Brace yourself, because there are more ragtag bands of 
documentary filmmakers wandering the terrain, each with yet 
another highly entertaining "take" on the problem.  There's 
rumors of one team that ran into that Gunther Hawk person with 
his "biodynamic beekeeping" song and dance schitck on a stick.  
Of course they drank the Rudolf Steiner Kool-Aide, and of 
course they are convinced that CCD is "nature's revenge", 
or some such new-age, Patchouli oil-infused mumbo-jumbo.

> As far as scientists jumping the gun to get their papers out first, 
> I agreed with Jim then and still do, that the studies were poorly 
> conducted, poorly presented 

So far, I agree with you that I agree with you.  

> and should have been put on hold since they were not in consonance 
> with other CCD observations. 

I'm not at all in agreement with the specific accusation leveled above.
It seems unfair to impose the additional burden of explaining
what seem to be spurious claims made by others who are far away. 
I simply expected a craftsman like job to be done in confirming
the preliminary results reported by Bee Alert and the Army at
the April '07 Working Group meeting, given that the authors of
the paper hogged all the samples collected on behalf of the
working group as a whole.

It also annoyed me that credit was not given where credit was
due to the group that should be credited with finding the 
specific new virus that seems to be connected to CCD. 

Yes, the paper was stunningly sloppy work, so poor that tests on 
samples saved from prior years are only now being run to see if 
they can find any IAPV in them.  (Note that finding IAPV would 
prove the "Australian connection" wrong, while not finding any 
IAPV could be rebuffed with the claim that insufficient samples 
were saved to reveal the presence of IAPV.) 

This puts them in the unique position of scrambling to get some 
more data to support the conclusions that they suddenly now 
claim they never made in the first place.  :)

But don't accuse anyone of having any but the best of intentions.
It is one thing to dispute findings, and quite another to impugn
motives.  

> I also stand by the problem of some beekeepers looking for a 
> bailout when CCD may not be involved.

OK, so how's that work, exactly?  One deliberately engages in
poor management practices, suffers very high losses, and
goes to the edge of not being able to break even, all in HOPES
that there MIGHT be a "bailout" at some point in the future?
This is reasoning so convoluted, one needs a map, a compass,
and a team of Sherpa porters to attempt to follow it. 

> So, Jim, since you seem to be in the know about CCD and its extent 
> to date- not for me but for the rest of us, is there a number, what 
> is it, and what is it based on?

I don't have a count for you, but like Dick Marron, I can say that
I have seen the problem with my own eyes in multiple operations.
You may recall that I am slightly more skeptical than most, so 
I have also taken the time to read, talk with people, ask pointed
questions, and think about what is known versus what is not.

So please don't keep expecting updates on the salinity of the
water when the problem is that beekeepers are drowning.

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