Hi All,

I'm totally naive about politics and the processes involved in making law.
I've taken the time to speak to Congressman Hasting's staff, and others who 
were at the June hearings.
Jim, I know that you dismiss my contacts as "second hand" information, but I 
consider that speaking to the congressman's staff is getting close to the 
source.
What I've heard doesn't appear to me to support your premises.
Please correct me if you feel that I am in error, as I'd like to get to the 
truth.

In October 2005 the National Academy of Sciences released "The Status of 
Pollinators in North America,"  which called the public's attention to the 
plight of both the honeybee and native pollinators.

In November, David Hackenberg reports colony losses to  Penn State Univ, and 
Colony Collapse Disorder is born.

On March 27, 2007, Congressman Hastings introduces HR 1709, which requests 
funding in the 2008-2012 budgets for a "SUSTAINED APICULTURAL RESEARCH AND 
COLONY COLLAPSE DISORDER WORKING GROUP."

In April, you attended the USDA-ARS CCD meeting to "develop points to be 
used in a command-performance briefing for Senate staffers."

On May 24, Senator Baucus introduced S 1496 -- the" Pollinator Habitat 
Protection Act of 2007."

On June 26, Danny Weaver, and several others, spoke before the Committee on 
Natural Resources about the plight of the honeybee and other pollinators. 
Prior to this, the Xerxes Society and Coevolution, both "native pollinator" 
groups, were instrumental in getting doors opened in Washington for 
beekeepers to speak.

On June 26 Mrs Boxer introduced S 1694--"the Pollinator Protection Act of 
2007," to coincide with National Pollinator Week--pushed largely by the 
native pollinator people, and from which we beekeepers benefitted.  In this 
bill, native pollinators are only mentioned a few times, and always in 
association with honeybees.  Jim, please take time to read the actual bill 
before criticizing our allies!  Virtually all the funding goes to honeybees. 
There is absolutely no indication to me that the bill was laden by the 
native pollinator people.

On June 28, Congressman Blumenauer introduced yet another habitat protection 
bill (no number yet).

It appears to me that things are moving rapidly in Washington!

A staffer explained to me that there are only "so many trains that leave the 
station" in Washington.  There is little chance of starting a new train, 
what with the limits of funding resources.  It is much easier to jump on a 
car of an already existing train.  It helps to be friendly with the engineer 
and porter.

Congressman Hasting's bill was immediately, as is standard, referred to 
committee, in this case the Agriculture Committee.  The Ag Committee has 
only one train leaving the station at this time--the 2008 Farm Bill.  Any 
stand-alone bill to fund bee research has little chance of passing, and 
would be for a limited term.  But added into the Farm Bill, it would be a 
drop in the bucket, and could easily pass, and for the long term--maybe even 
until the next time that CCD rears its ugly head!  Since there are no other 
trains leaving the Agricultural Committee until the Farm Bill leaves,  CCD 
funding was forced to languish for the time being, but hardly due to any 
fault of the native pollinator people!

In this case, Jim, it's hard to see how to justify your statement that "In 
the case at hand, we were slowed down [by the native pollinator people] for 
2 crucial months when evidence was still fresh."  Indeed, Congressman 
Hasting's bill wasn't even for funding until 2008!  There have never been 
any immediate monies for research proposed, that could have been delayed.

I'm sorry for my poor choice of wording about congress people not having a 
clue about beekeeper's needs.  What has been clearly relayed to me is that 
the staffers are begging for information from beekeepers, since the congress 
people and their staff know virtually nothing about honeybees or beekeeping, 
other than sensational press reports that we are in trouble.  They really 
want to help us, and the native pollinator people are doing a better job 
than the beekeepers.  We are definitely benefitting more from their help, 
than they are from ours!

Jim, if I've been inaccurate in any of the above statements, please let me 
know.  Otherwise, may I reiterate that the "native pollinator people" are 
our allies in a battle for recognition and funding, and that we should be 
appreciative of our allies, not insulting.

Respectfully,
Randy Oliver







----- Original Message ----- 
From: "James Fischer" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: [BEE-L] Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the 
Senate


> Randy said:
>
>> So Jim, now that you've bitten the hand that's
>> feeding us, what next?
>
> I have a different take on that shopworn idiom.
> Not feeding us, but feeding UPON us.
> Parasites.
>
> A varroa mite coming along for the ride should not be
> credited with "helping" the forager collect nectar and pollen.
>
> All the varroa mite does is slow the bee down, and weaken it.
>
> In the case at hand, we were slowed down for 2 crucial months
> when evidence was still fresh.  All we really needed during
> those 2 crucial months was some feet on the ground with liquid
> nitrogen flasks to get some really useful samples, but no one
> had the cash to pay for even that basic step.  We still don't.
> No money has even yet been allocated.
>
> We were co-opted, and converted into foot soldiers in
> an army that gives only lip service to honey bees,
> who want to address general environmental issues, and are
> perfectly willing to delay our need for quick funding in
> order to leverage the attention CCD has gotten to their
> own purposes.
>
> Someone got sold a bill of goods, and was somehow influenced
> to believe that at a time when honey bees are getting more
> press coverage and more actual concern than ever before, we
> needed to include some generic environmental concerns to
> assure passage of any bill by both houses.  (Hence my
> coining of the phrase "Pollinator Protection Racket".)
>
>> I hope that they realize that your personal vendetta doesn't
>> necessarily reflect the views of informed beekeepers.
>
> I'm not sure you are as well-informed as you think.
> Read on, and see if you don't get a better perspective.
> It is a tad long, but I want to inform, and the tale
> is a twisty one.
>
> What happened here was the equivalent of a hearing
> before the Senate on "mad cow disease" inexplicably
> being re-labeled "Food Ecosystems", and suddenly
> including significant testimony by lobbyists smugly
> suggesting that a solution to the problem was to eat
> more lamb, and asking for legislation to increase
> conservation easements for wild longhorn sheep.
>
> No, not even sheep.  Not obscure enough.  Perhaps
> muskrats and otters.  Animals far removed from any
> practical agricultural applications in all but the
> minds of a very tiny number of people.
>
> If you think that an incredulous reaction is unwarranted,
> think of how the cattlemen would react.  (Many of our
> political problems are best understood by replacing
> "beehives" with "cows" in the equation, and re-calculating
> our expectations accordingly.)
>
> "Informed" includes understanding the situation in terms of
> larger contexts, and this is why I paint the vivid pictures
> you call "a vendetta" merely because they are vivid.
>
> I don't see why the oh-so-powerful and oh-so influential folks
> that claimed to be helping us hadn't already gotten all the
> legislation they needed prior to the appearance of CCD.
>
> Could it be that they saw our problem as a vehicle to get
> some attention for their own agenda?  Regardless, they haven't
> any new and unknown problems that required "emergency funding",
> so why did they wait to make requests until OUR time of need,
> rather than simply supporting the clear, simple language of
> HR1709, which addresses CCD only?  Could it be that they needed
> our problems to get what they before had been unable to justify
> "on the merits"?
>
>> ...the impression that I get from speaking to those who actually know,
>> is that most congresspeople don't have a clue about the bee industry's
>
>> importance in agriculture, nor the problems we face.
>
> "Don't have a clue"?  Say what???
>
> I don't agree at all, and I have more than second-hand
> hearsay upon which to base my stance:
>
> 1) The Hastings bill (HR1709) was introduced in the House on
>   March 27, before the USDA CCD meetings took place.  That
>   seems both clueful and pro-active.
>
> 2) At the start of the April USDA-ARS CCD meeting, we were
>   told up front by Kevin Hackett that the goal was to
>   develop points to be used in a command-performance
>   briefing for Senate staffers, so the Senate's interest
>   was also clueful and acute in April, if not before.
>
> I think that this shows that our elected representatives had
> a great deal of awareness MONTHS ago, and needed no prompting
> to listen to our plight.  They needed to only read the
> newspapers to hear about the problem at issue.
> They promptly requested justification for funding.
>
>> We as an industry have very little clout in Washington.
>> In reality, the native pollinator people hardly hopped
>> onto our coattails--on the contrary, they have a funded lobbyist who
>> has greatly aided the beekeeping industry!
>
> Perhaps one of the reasons why we "lack clout" is that those who
> claim to be "in the know" are ignorant and foolish enough to say
> things like our elected representatives "DON'T HAVE A CLUE".
> If I said that to or about a Senator or Congressperson, I'd
> expect to be escorted to the street by security, and never
> expect to get their ear again.
>
> As for the "aid" of the lobbyist(s), if the Senate had promptly
> introduced a true "companion bill" to HR1709, one that stayed
> "on topic", I would agree it was "aid".  But the Senate hearing
> was neither "on topic" or prompt.  Months were wasted.  Why?
> What delayed the Senate?  In April, they were fully briefed.
> The change in focus clearly indicates that they were lobbied.
>
> Our elected representatives DO "have a clue", despite your
> offhand dismissal, and as a result, they can smell "pork"
> a mile away.  I don't call someone piggybacking their own
> agenda onto a simple funding request "help" at all - I
> call that "hijacking".  It puts the entire bill at risk
> of being ridiculed by the first representative that wants
> to give it a "Golden Fleece Award" and score some points
> with his constituency as a "tight-fisted guardian of the
> public purse strings".
>
>> I just received a note from a major player in our
>> industry on this issue...
>
> Yes, the reality is that we now may have no choice but
> to make nice noises, as even the "major players" were
> apparently unable to keep the focus on honey bees.
>
>> The staffers say that no one in the bee industry
>> is talking to them.
>
> So no one, not even the "major player" you cited has
> contacted these staffers?  That seems a strange sort
> of "major player" to me.
>
> I'm sure any number of beekeepers would have been happy
> to speak at the hearings or sit down with staffers for
> background sessions or merely sit in the audience if
> the "major players" ever told anyone the dates and
> times of the meetings/hearings in advance.
>
>> Then I suggest that the beekeeping industry not stand with you.
>> Instead, we should contact our representatives, and ask them to work
>> hand in hand with the native pollinator people...
>
> I agree!
> What other choice do we have at this point but to
> support the proposed legislation?  We have to merely
> hope that our simple "emergency funding request" is not
> lost and forgotten among all the added environmental
> conservation language!
>
> But think for a moment - as a result of the delay, must
> we now wait until one or more of us is hit by CCD to
> use the money to gather samples from fresh cases?
>
> You want us all to smile and shuffle, and hope that
> SOMEONE ELSE is the one hit and maybe wiped out by CCD
> this fall or next spring, so the money can be put to
> good use on fresh cases of CCD?
>
> Nope, I can't wish that upon anyone.
> Not even you, even though it would teach you a lesson.
>
> It may be that "science delayed" is "science denied"
> in this trip on the merry-go-round.  That would be
> a bummer, wouldn't it?
>
>
>> ...tooting their vainglorious horn...
>
> For valuable information without any vanity or
> horn-tooting at all, just go to "RandyOliver.com",
> and pay $5 to read reprints of articles already
> paid for by a magazine.  Its a lot like Bee-L,
> or a blog, but without the ego.
>
> ******************************************************
> * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at:          *
> * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm  *
> ******************************************************
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.14/885 - Release Date: 7/3/2007 
> 10:02 AM
>
> 

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