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

I agree that the individuals are a pretty harmless bunch, but 
they are persistently single-minded and self-serving. Their 
recent track record, as I outlined, can only be described as 
"hijacking". 

No, I take that back.

Its a "POLLINATOR PROTECTION RACKET"!  Even Tony Soprano never would 
lower himself to this.  "Gee, nice little funding bill you've got there.

We'd hate to see anything happen to it, so we better insert some funding

for native bees too."

If we object to their skimming of money using the "CCD" problem as
the excuse, we would only delay the bill further, atop the delay due
to their lobbying.  Simple extortion.

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

This is the classical "environmental quality" argument. Beekeepers have 
supported the agenda of the Xerces types in this area, and not attempted

to hijack either the discussion or the funding.  In return, we expected 
them to let us lead this tiny little effort, or at least expected them 
to stay out of the way.  Instead, they went behind out backs, certainly
delaying the bill, and may have put the bill's passage at risk with
their 
unilateral additions.

> In order to get a broader base of support in Congress, it may help to
> broaden the bill to be more inclusive.  

You bill yourself as the "thoughtful beekeeper", so why not think 
this through a bit?

There are powerful forces that have a habit of opposing anything that 
might expose them to finger-pointing and regulation.  Agribusiness, 
chemical companies, and generic Paleolithic Conservatives all tend to 
have knee-jerk reactions that might bog the bill down due to the 
inclusion of language that diverges from the simple pragmatic language 
of "please fund work to find the cause of this specific agriculture
problem".

The phrase "native pollinators" tends to be uttered in contexts that 
involve both finger-pointing and regulation.  While most beekeepers 
agree with the Xerces types on the general principles, we don't need 
them screwing this CCD funding bill up.  Many clues have already gone 
cold while we waited for funding, so we don't need anything that might 
delay funding further.  We certainly don't need this to turn from a
pragmatic "agriculture" bill into an "environmental" bill.

> there are those who feel that CCD is a natural phenomenon that will
> likely recur, and then "disappear" again. 

Funny, I'm the one who mentioned that possibility first.  
http://bee-quick.com/reprints/serial_killer.pdf (Bee Culture, June 07.) 

Even if does turn out to be a natural phenomenon, we still need to
be able to understand it, predict it, and figure out a way to avoid it.
So we still need the funding, just to find out if it is "natural".
The Gypsy Moth invasion was a "natural phenomenon", and serious money
continues to be allocated to the effort to combat it.  Ditto for
drought, hoof-in-mouth, Florida citrus blight, bowl weevils...
I'll say it again, if it were cows dying rather than bee colonies
in these numbers, the national guard would have been mobilized months
ago.

> 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. 

If so, how would also funding UNRELATED research on "native bees"
make it any more palatable to those who would think funding 
work on the clear and present danger at hand was a "waste"?

But "Truckloads"?  Certainly not. "Elusive"? It has only been elusive 
due to a lack of technology, expertise, and rapid response.  It takes 
money to buy technology, expertise, and speed.  Need I once again trot 
out the contrasting case of the contaminated pet food to illustrate 
exactly what the taxpayers expect in this area?

I stand by each and every one of my prior statements.  I could have been

much more harsh, but I chose to set my keyboard to "chop" rather than 
"puree" or "crush".  :)

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