Hi All,
My posts on this issue come in spurts, since I've been staging and moving
bees the past two weeks. As I've said before, politics are not my forte,
and I appreciate Jim's patience in educating myself and the List.
Jim said: > A lot of opinions have presented AS "facts", but few of them
have been documented to support your contentions.
Thank you , Jim. This is exactly my point. You have continually expressed
you OPINION that the native pollinator folk have hampered CCD funding, yet
when I've asked you for FACTS to support your contention, you skip the
question.
For the benefit of the List, allow me to ask you again for what appears to
me what would be the two "smoking gun" facts:
1. Between the Beltsville meeting in April, and your June 27 post blasting
the native pollinator groups, could you please tell the List who made
written requests for emergency funding, and to whom? Since these funds
would have to be appropriated from existing agricultural budgets, am I
correst in assuming that requests would have been directed to someone in
Agriculture?
2. Can you document for the List specifically how native pollinator groups
"hijacked" any specific requests listed above?
The crux of your complaint against the NP folk is that they hampered
immediate funding. If this is indeed true, it would have had to have
happened during the time period above, and would have to have affected
specific requests. Please document those FACTS for us.
The first written request for emergency funding that I've seen is the
AHPA/ABF letter to Secretary Johanns. You must be referring to earlier
requests that I have not seen--please tell us what they were!
> Funny how these "major players" never seem to have names.
They have names all right, but I try not to quote without permission, and
some are in a compromised position due to being on the receiving end of
potential funding, and others do not wish to have you attacking them.
> Support WHAT? Some new bill? Nothing said to either the House or Senate
> has even mentioned ANY KIND of "immediate funding". And neither bill
> calls for any sort of "immediate funding".
My point exactly! If there was no immediate funding mentioned, how could
the NP groups have hijacked it?
The "major players" didn't just drop the ball, they forgot to BRING the
ball altogether!
You and I are in total agreement on this.
> The USDA has to be directed to take money away from something else, don't
> they? They only have so much money, and all of it is allocated for
> specific purposes.
Thank you for reiterating. I thought that I made this clear earlier.
> Claims are made by each of two different organizations that they
> represent "US beekeeping". These claims are false. The AHPA represents
> a group of larger beekeepers, and the ABF represents a mixed bag of a few
> commercial beekeepers, honey packers, and hobby beekeepers. Neither can
> claim to represent more than a fraction of the total of either hives or
> beekeepers.
I'm in total agreement with you on this, too. I don't feel that my "niche"
beekeeping business is well represented by anyone. But these organizations
have at least hired lobbyists, and have some influence in Washington. As
Bob suggested, we need to speak with a common voice, so these may be our
only voice now.
> But mention THE USDA-ARS PLAN!!
> And offer up your own money (which the Honey Board took) to start.
Thank you for the positive suggestions. I appreciate your insight on this.
> Oh no, of course not. They all waited until AFTER the hearings on
> purpose to ask for quick funding. No one said anything about the need
> for short-fuse funding in the hearings on purpose. It is so much more
> effective that way. :)
Jim, you are confusing me! Again, if no one asked, how could the NP folk
have hurt us????
> And puh-leeze... don't anybody try to claim that we have been helped at
> all by groups that CONTINUE to try to make Honey Bees look like optional,
> easy to get along without, perhaps even scary and undesirable insects.
I'll leave it to the List to decide for themselves. The players that I've
spoken to who have actually been working in Washington are unanimous in
their gratitude for the support that the NP folk have given us.
> I wouldn't be taking the time to type this stuff if I wasn't dead-certain
> of the facts
Jim, I've never been "dead-certain" of anything. I try not to close my
mind. Why bother to post to a "discussion" group if one is "dead certain"
from the start?
By the way, Congressman Blumenauer did change his June 26 testimony in the
record, and removed the erroneous claim that native pollinators were more
important that honeybees in US agriculture. I'd be happy to forward anyone
the pdf if they wish.
Randy Oliver
******************************************************
* Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: *
* http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm *
******************************************************
|
