> He argues that if we don't take the collective responsibility to make our 
> practice more sustainble, we will ultimately undermine our businesses.

The business would be far more sustainable in  the minds of the most 
successful beekeepers if government, government employees, and other 
idealists would quit making the business more difficult than it already is.

> Viewing an issue, such as the movement of bees, from the perspective of 
> not only whether it will be profitable today, but also whether this profit 
> will be enjoyed into the future seems farsighted, not unreasonable.

Your statement will not get any argument from anyone. However, nobody can 
see into next week, let alone the farther future.  Anyone who claims to do 
so is a liar and should be treated with the utmost of caution.

> I don't think the position is anachronistic.  I was with an organic 
> agriculture specialist last weekend and he showed me how he assesses the 
> embodied energy of particular agricultural practices using very 
> sophisticated models...

In my mind this is a very worthwhile idea.  Unfortunately, there is a great 
deal of misinformation around, so basic facts are hard to come by, and the 
practice relies on many, many assumptions, many of which are unprovable. 
Nonetheless, the exercise is useful to try to compare paths.  Also, many are 
fooled by the easy proof that a few people can follow a suggested path. 
What many cannot see is that the "ideal" path is hypothetical, restricted, 
and workable for only a minority.

> a comprehensive approach to sustainability is pragmatic and contemporary 
> and not  "idyllic ancestral".

We are all interested in real sustainability, HOWEVER, the most important 
idea in true sustainbability is implicit in the word "sustain".  To reach 
sustainability there should not be discontinuities and dislocations should 
be minimized.  Unfortunately, "sustainability" as used by many means 
stripping the legitimacy from others and transferring it to oneself.

> I also do not think it is very helpful to write a position off merely 
> because "strongest interests will prevail" (ie don't do XYZ, no matter how 
> worthy the goal, because it will likely be subverted).

That is not what was intended.  People are welcome to be martyrs for lost 
causes if they think that is how they want to live. What I was saying is 
that the future is coming, and the smart ones will find out how to ride the 
wave and use it to their advantage.  The border will open, and the best 
minds will find ways to maximize the advantages trade brings and minimize 
the collateral damage.  From Ted's article, I can see that he has not been 
to California, and not talked to US beekeepers.

> There are great challenges to the business of beekeeping and it seems like 
> a particularily bad time to take a defeatist stance.

Exactly.  Suggesting that beekeeping is not sustainable is defeatist IMO. 

-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l for rules, FAQ and  other info ---