> Jim questioned my statement:

Questioned? 
No, demolished it. :)

>> it's generally accepted that honeybees can
>> disrupt  ecosystems by pollinating exotic weeds, 
>> and by  competing with native pollinators 
>> for resources.
>
> I'm not interested in digressing.

You were interested enough to make the claim, and
attach the phrase "generally accepted" to it, and 
I was interested enough to take the time to debunk 
yet another misleading claim about "pollinators"
using nothing but the sort of general knowledge 
that anyone, certainly a beekeeper, might have.

So, now that we have been backed into a corner,
suddenly it is suddenly a "digression", eh?  :)

> That [pollination by honey bees resulting in
> more blooms for all] may have an effect on the 
> next year's crop, but competition for nectar 
> and pollen might affect native species this year. 

But honey bees have had HUNDREDS of years to
out-compete and force native pollinators into
extinction.  Howcome they haven't already, if
they are even half the "threat" you want to make
them out to be to native species?

> I don't think that the resource competition
> thing is a big issue

Then why did you bring it up?
And why, once I illustrate how it clearly is a 
NON-issue, would it be "generally accepted"?
Wouldn't a non-issue be generally accepted as
a non-issue?

> However, if a native species in a limited range
> is threatened, some honeybee mitigation may well 
> be indicated.

Now wait just a second here.  First it is 
"generally accepted", then it is "a digression",
then you don't think it "is a big issue", but
then you REPEAT the claim that somehow 
extinctions might result in a "limited range"!
Which is it?

Well, we have seen AHB out-compete EHB, and 
replace 100% of EHB colonies in some areas,
so if there was any "threat", one would expect
native pollinators to be driven out of all
heavily-infested AHB areas.  Has this happened?
If so, you might then have a shred of fact upon 
which to hang all the speculation.  Funny, I've 
never heard anyone mention this as a problem, even
though AHB has spread over most of Mexico and
a bunch of counties in the USA.

> Jim, I'm not at all interested in speaking for
> native pollinators.

Sorry, I was directly addressing things you
brought up in your softball "questions".
Since it looked like a duck, and walked like a duck,
then it seems fair to conclude that you were 
"speaking for native pollinators".

Speaking for "non-native-pollinators", I think
that all the requirements for full US citizenship
have been met by the honey bee.  They've been
here long enough, worked hard enough, and been
subjected to enough abuses.  If I can be called
a "US native" simply because I was born here,
I think we can dispense with prejudice against
useful creatures who have done no harm, and 
been a big fat help in feeding a nation, and
a large swath of the rest of the planet.

> This issue is about the political practices of
> people, not about the insects!  

Ok, if you now want to say so, fine.
So, not another word about the relative merits
of one insect versus another from you.

> If the PEOPLE did indeed hamper us, I'd be the
> first to write them to ask them to stop.

I'm sure that none of this was due to evil intent.
In fact, I'm sure that only the best of intentions
were behind the actions of all and sundry.

And you know what the Road To Hell is paved with,
dontcha?

But it matters not a bit what anyone's intentions
might have been.  What happened was that an 
over-hyped tale of an exaggerated impact of CCD
on "the beekeeping industry" was leveraged to
justify conservation of native pollinators.
That was just plain nonsense.
Conservation need not be justified by any
reward except the preservation of species
itself.

What also happened was that these same native
pollinators were overtly offered up as if they
were viable current replacements for honey bees, 
or somehow "more important to agriculture" as a 
result of the current problems of honey bees.  
That's not just nonsense, that's disingenuous.

Then, an amazingly similar bill title was
used and introduced as a Senate "companion bill"
to a House bill that any beekeeper who has kept up
with the legislation would consider "mission-critical".
The bill was in no way a "companion".

Now, all of what I have written about was done by 
people of good character, people who bore no ill 
will toward anyone, people who I am sure would be
a lot of fun to hang out with.  

But they were so focused on their own goals,
they neglected to consider what they were 
doing to the needs of beekeeping.  Heck, we
don't even yet know if we should shrug about 
CCD or panic - we certainly don't need anyone 
"helping us" to turn our agenda into part of 
a long-term multi-million-dollar program,
when we need some quick work to at least
triage this darned "CCD" thingy.

I think it was self-centered deliberate
interest.  I assume that all involved 
have the mental capacity to think a few 
moves ahead, and I therefore DO make the 
accusation that the problems of honey bees 
were used as "leverage" with deliberate 
intent to justify a grand agenda. 
The grand agenda has existed for years in 
the mind of an individual who worked at the 
USDA for a time, and proposed similar moves, 
which the USDA rejected as impractical at 
the time.  (You see, I do my homework, do 
my reading, and thereby know my history.)

I don't like beekeepers staring bankruptcy
in the face being used as unwilling poster
children for someone else's agenda, as it
moves focus away from THE BEEKEEPERS' problems.

Problems that could become yours and mine.
Maybe, maybe not.  We just don't know.

We have an agricultural issue to address.
Nothing more.

While environmental quality and wildlife are
laudable issues to push, they have absolutely
nothing to do with agriculture in this context.  
In fact, as I illustrated, making agricultural 
claims about native pollinators can only increase
the exploitation of them, and thereby increase 
the risk of ADDITIONAL extinctions of native 
pollinators as a direct result of such exploitation.

So, I'll say it yet again:

Exploitation is neither conservation nor preservation.

Native pollinators have been exploited.
Beekeepers in trouble have been exploited.
Congressmen have been misled, and Senate 
testimony has been designed to misinform.

Don't expect us to stop until the native pollinator
camp and the lawmakers they have influenced stand 
up and make clear and compelling statements in 
support of the need for quick funding for CCD, and 
makes it a prerequisite to their long-term program.

So far, the ABF and the AHPA have been awakened 
from their slumber, a Congressman has gone back
and changed a transcript (that no one will ever
read), so we are making some after-the-fact 
progress here.

My coffe cup is empty, so I'm done typing, but
the next step is to get some focus on some 
funding that can get feet on the ground THIS year.  

It is just like cleaning supers, you have to keep
scraping away at all the sticky gook.
("Have hive tool, will travel.")

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