a couple of Ted Hancock snips followed by> my comments... 
“All indications point to an annual loss by the (beekeeping) industry in the neighbourhood of 10 percent caused by pesticides alone. Few industries can tolerate such losses and survive.”

>This question is a matter of bee biology and economics and imho setting any number and deciding it would be ruinous to an industry is speculative at best.  As an example during the worst of the organophosphate era we routinely killed 2/3 of the hives at the end of the season. Honey prices were very low ($.65/lb is what I remember) and there was no money to be made from pollination. 

During the multi-year debate over the pros and cons of neonics, the pro-neonic advocates have evolved from proclaiming, ‘ Shoot that messenger!’, to, ‘Ok. Neonics might kill a broad spectrum of beneficial insects and persist in the environment, but things could be worse!’. How does either of these arguments address the problem at hand?  They seem to assume improvements in pest control are neither possible nor desirable.

>This also seems to ignore or deflects from the problems created from beekeeper applied pesticides or antibiotics. I see no one has gone there or reviewed the hard data that beekeepers may be actively shooting themselves in the foot. How could you think about blaming other when you are incapable or unwilling to follow even basic ism protocol.

Beekeepers have also argued that we need to support landowners. Since landowners need neonics, we should not criticize their use. I agree there is nothing wrong with wanting to see your neighbours get ahead in life and we have all benefited from this noble human trait. But there comes a point in any debate when we are morally obligated to voice an opinion.  When the manufacture of an insecticide has admitted it is toxic to bees and other beneficial insects should we still argue it is safe?

>So what right is given to someone to pollute or contaminate someone else's property? IMHO it is not just about the landowners right to use their property as they see fit but the inevitable right to contaminate property way way beyond their legal property boundaries.  As I have suggested before ag products (food and fiber) are considered inferior goods which basically means a reduction in output means the collective income from these products. < although simple in concept this is a difficult idea for some individuals to understand. More in this case may mean the manufactures of these product profit but not so much with the primary producer.

In his handbook, McGregor reviews the history of pesticides that have come and gone in agriculture over the years. Farmers in the past, as now, have often been reluctant to stop using chemicals that effectively killed pests. Yet time and again, products have been pulled from market when the negative effects have become known.

>Add to this.... as we are currently seeing in the use of one (totally off label) varroa product some individuals will double down on the use of the product that is quite evidently failing. This then seem to lead to blaming your neighbor (mite bombs) or questioning the manufacture as to the quality of the product.

Are neonics a serious factor in the current state of honey bee health? We certainly have little hope of finding a safer product if we deflect and stifle criticism with tales of bee-kills past.

>Certainly true and as most here I suspect know you have to get beyond denial (it ain't a river in Africa) before you can even admit a problem exist.  Again it is interesting to see folks who claim to believe in science and data but are in total denial that a problem even exist.

Gene in central Texas   

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html