From MAILER-DAEMON Sat Feb 28 10:57:32 2009 Return-Path: <> X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on industrial X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-90.4 required=2.4 tests=ADVANCE_FEE_1,AWL, SPF_HELO_PASS,USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=disabled version=3.1.8 X-Original-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Delivered-To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Received: from listserv.albany.edu (unknown [169.226.1.24]) by metalab.unc.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id BFC424908E for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from listserv.albany.edu (listserv.albany.edu [169.226.1.24]) by listserv.albany.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n1SFhrpw016524 for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:21 -0500 (EST) Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2009 10:52:17 -0500 From: "University at Albany LISTSERV Server (14.5)" Subject: File: "BEE-L LOG0707A" To: adamf@IBIBLIO.ORG Message-ID: Content-Length: 162737 Lines: 3659 ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:09:03 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "=?windows-1252?Q?J._Waggle?=" Subject: Re: Comparing LC to SC for varroa..... Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit randy oliver wrote: >Am I missing something here? The SC colonies always had more mite drop, to me indicating that there were more mites!-- Hello Randy! Reviewing the 6 known mechanisms for varroa resistance; Length of phoretic period, Low mite fertility, Brood attractiveness, Length of post-capping, Grooming behavior and Hygienic behavior. Small cell would probably contribute directly to two of the six mechanisms by reducing brood attractiveness, and (with mites having to search longer for a suitable cell) would possibly cause the phoretic period to lengthen. This lengthening of the phoretic period, (arguably the highest risk period for varroa) will perhaps cause a symptom of higher mite drop because of the increase chance for a mite being groomed, falling or meeting some other demise. Perhaps in this case, ‘more mite drop‘ does not necessarily indicate more mites. >From my experience working with feral bees, I am seeing that mite pressure in a colony is as much a reflection of the resistance at the colony level as it is telling of the mite resistance of the local population of honeybees. Relying on mite counts alone IMHO is a failure to properly assess a colony, which is of course (as we all know) should be based on ’over all performance’. Mite counts are a ’symptom’ of other causes, IMO, mite drops are so ambiguous in their interpretation, I personally don’t understand how they can have any practicality as a selective tool, especially when over all performance will tell all that is needed. In a local population of honeybees that are carrying high mite loads, culling colonies based on mite drop could perhaps be a selection against two of the known mechanisms for mite resistance; grooming behavior and brood attractiveness. And possibly, (on a natural comb system) a selection against feral bees which are sometimes of smaller cell sizes. Relating this to the study, perhaps mite pressure in the research colonies (also being a reflection of the mite pressure found in the local population of bees) was probably near a comparative level, and the small cell group may be having the symptom of higher mite drop due to a lengthening of the phoretic period. Best Wishes, Joe Waggle Derry, PA “Bees Gone Wild Apiaries” FeralBeeProject.com http://pets.groups.yahoo.com/group/HistoricalHoneybeeArticles ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:09:47 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: CCD & GMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, The GMO issue is now coming up in CCD circles. Also in literature being passed out and included in very informative DVD's and Cd's being sold in health food stores on the history of GMO and interveiws with many of the worlds best known INDEPENDENT researchers. I have been against GM modified seeds from the start and hate to see honey and bee pollen listed as possible sources of GMO genetics but realize both could carry the GMO genetics through the pollen. I am not going to go into why I am against GMO on this list but the research I have seen is quite a bit different than the big Ag. corps are putting out. Seems to me the U.S. public are being used as GMO guinia pigs. Thanks to our current label laws not requiring foods to put on the label if GMO products were used! If you think pesticide contamination is bad then check out GMO contamination of agriculture. Enough said! Quote from a anti GMO DVD flyer included with one of the three DVD'S I purchased today at a health food store to see what was being said about honey & pollen. "Other Sources of GMO'S" "Honey and bee pollen that may have GM sources of pollen" bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 30 Jun 2007 23:20:25 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dee Lusby Subject: Re: Comparing LC to SC for varroa..... In-Reply-To: <000a01c7bb1b$87d31fe0$15ebbad8@D98T9541> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lionel: I have never known anyone to get AFB in hives fed honey, whether own, or boughten, that has been extracted and put up(skimmed and strained basically for floating particulates). I do know of hives getting AFB from frames interchanged with mummies in cells along with stores, and that is a different ball park for doing! along with cappings from same if extracted, or fed back unskimmed/unstrained where spun out mummies would/could be intermingled/mixed in. Difference seems to be availability/access to spores adhering to outside body parts for problems later vs that eaten as strickly food and digested. So again, feeding honey is not problem, unless you have of course breached your bees digestive system; but then they would be already sick and weak and hurting and you should know the difference prior to feeding one would think! I believe we are talking feeding healthy bees that just need food, or do we need to clarify by degree of health for various categories/types feeding, and then that would bee a horse of a different color, for I am sure there would be several. Dee ____________________________________________________________________________________ Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. http://travel.yahoo.com/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 08:40:34 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: New York City bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >From a 1999 article (http://www.cityfarmer.org/beekeepNY.html) > Two summers ago, David Graves, a veteran bee master who was on the roof helping Ms. Goodman tend the hives, knew of just one beehive in the five boroughs: now he is aware of 13 hives in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. And city beekeepers claim that there could be twice that number. But few beekeepers reveal their presence because under the New York City Health Code the activity is illegal. Section 161.01 bans keeping animals that are ''wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally inclined to do harm.'' An offender could be fined up to $2,000. * * * § 161.01. Wild animals prohibited. (a) No person shall sell or give to another person, possess, harbor or keep wild animals identified in subsection (b) of this section or in regulations promulgated by the Commissioner pursuant to subsection (e) of this section other than in: (1) A zoological park or aquarium operated by the Department of Parks, by the Wildlife Conservation Society, or by the Staten Island Zoological Society; or (2) A laboratory operated pursuant to ¨þ 504 of the Public Health Law; or (3) A circus or native wildlife rehabilitator licensed by federal or state agencies; or (4) A place which has received the approval of the Department to exhibit or use such animals, and which has protective devices which are adequate to prevent such animal from escaping or injuring the public. The Department may impose reasonable conditions and time limits on the granting of such approval. (b) For the purposes of this Code, wild animals are deemed to be any animals which are naturally inclined to do harm and capable of inflicting harm upon human beings and are hereby prohibited pursuant to subsection (a). Such animals shall include: (i) any animals specified by the Commissioner in regulations promulgated pursuant to this section; (ii) any native or exotic wildlife whose possession or sale is prohibited because they are designated as protected or endangered pursuant to any federal, state or local law, regulation, or rule; and (iii) any of the following animals: (1) All dogs other than domesticated dogs (Canis familiaris), including, but not limited to, wolf, fox, coyote, hyaena, dingo, jackal, dhole, fennec, raccoon dog, zorro, bush dog, aardwolf, cape hunting dog and any hybrid offspring of a wild dog and domesticated dog. (2) All cats other than domesticated cats (Felis catus), including, but not limited to, lion, tiger, leopard, ocelot, jaguar, puma, panther, mountain lion, cheetah, wild cat, cougar, bobcat, lynx, serval, caracal, jaguarundi, margay and any hybrid offspring of a wild cat and domesticated cat. (3) All bears, including polar, grizzly, brown and black bear. (4) All fur bearing mammals of the family Mustelidae, including, but not limited to, weasel, marten, mink, badger, ermine, skunk, otter, pole cat, zorille, wolverine, stoat and ferret. (5) All Procyonidae: All raccoon (eastern, desert, ring-tailed cat), kinkajou, cacomistle, cat-bear, panda and coatimundi. (6) All carnivorous mammals of the family Viverridae, including, but not limited to, civet, mongoose, genet, binturong, fossa, linsang and suri- cate. (7) All bats (Chiroptera). (8) All non-human primates, including, but not limited to, monkey, ape, chimpanzee, gorilla and lemur. (9) All squirrels (Sciuridae). (10) Reptiles (Reptilia). All Helodermatidae (gila monster and Mexican beaded lizard); all front-fanged venomous snakes, even if devenomized, including, but not limited to, all Viperidae (viper, pit viper), all Elapidae (cobra, mamba, krait, coral snake), all Atractaspididae (African burrowing asp), all Hydrophiidae (sea snake), all Laticaudidae (sea krait); all venomous, mid-or rear-fanged, Duvernoy-glanded members of the family Colubridae, even if devenomized; any member, or hybrid offspring of the family Boidae, including, but not limited to, the common or green anaconda and yellow anaconda; any member of the family Pythonidae, including but not limited to the African rock python, Indian or Burmese python, Amethystine or scrub python; any member of the family Varanidae, including the white throated monitor, Bosc's or African savannah monitor, Komodo monitor or dragon, Nile monitor, crocodile monitor, water monitor, Bornean earless monitor; any member of the family Iguanidae, including the green or common iguana; any member of the family teiidae, including, but not limited to the golden, common, or black and white tegu; all members of the family Chelydridae, including snapping turtle and alligator snapping turtle; and all members of the order Crocodylia, including, but not limited to alligator, caiman and crocodile. (11) Birds and Fowl (Aves): All predatory or large birds, including, but not limited to, eagle, hawk, falcon, owl, vulture, condor, emu, rhea and ostrich; roosters, geese, ducks and turkeys prohibited or otherwise regulated pursuant to ¨þ 161.19 of this Code, the Agriculture and Markets Law or applicable federal law. (12) All venomous insects, including, but not limited to, bee, hornet and wasp. (13) Arachnida and Chilopoda: All venomous spiders, including, but not limited to, tarantula, black widow and solifugid; scorpion; all venomous arthropods including, but not limited to, centipede. (14) All large rodents (Rodentia), including, but not limited to, gopher, muskrat, paca, woodchuck, marmot, beaver, prairie dog, capybara, sewellel, viscacha, porcupine and hutia. (15) All even-toed ungulates (Artiodactyla) including, but not limited to, deer, antelope, sheep, giraffe and hippopotamus. (16) All odd-toed ungulates (Perissodactyla) other than domesticated horses (Equus caballus), including, but not limited to, zebra, rhinoceros and tapir. (17) All marsupials, including, but not limited to, Tasmanian devil, dasyure, bandicoot, kangaroo, wallaby, opossum, wombat, koala bear, cuscus, numbat and pigmy, sugar and greater glider. (18) Sea mammals (Cetacea, Pinnipedia and Sirenia), including, but not limited to, dolphin, whale, seal, sea lion and walrus. (19) All elephants (Proboscides). (20) All hyrax (Hyracoidea). (21) All pangolin (Pholidota). (22) All sloth and armadillo (Edentala). (23) Insectivorous mammals (Insectivora): All aardvark (Tubulidentata), anteater, shrew, otter shrew, gymnure, desman, tenrec, mole and hedge hog. (24) Gliding lemur (Dermoptera). -- Peter L. Borst Ithaca, NY USA http://picasaweb.google.com/peterlborst ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 11:39:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: CCD & GMO Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit As we hear frequently all beekeeping is local. Here in central Mn I did a 2 yr review of pollen my bees brought into pollen traps from 30 colonies in 3 locations. I hired a biology student who did her grad thesis on pollen identitification. During the course of 2 summers we found only trace amounts of pollen from corn and no soybean pollen. Right now our basswood trees are in bloom and we usually see a 2 week flow from sweet clover after that and by then the corn will be done giving off pollen. The science just is not there to point a finger at GMO's as being unsafe for human and honeybee consumption. In my opinion the more real concern on GMO's is the transgenic transfer of pollen to other species, this is documented. Regardless of what is published by the CCD working group or respected scientists in the future, the urban myth of cell phones and gmo's causing CCD, etc has been circulated and accepted as truth by a segment of the population who knows nothing about science but has fervent almost religious beliefs that global warming and technology is killing the planet and fast. On a weekly basis I get people from this growing fringe group who shop our farmers market stalls. They don't want to hear any information or opinions that does not jive with their apocalyptic views of the environment. It reminds me of the Y2K scare only it has more of a religuous tone with very strong emotional feelings. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:22:37 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Comparing LC to SC for varroa..... MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hi Joe, I understand the limitations of mite drop counts. However, in this study, the only measured variable was mite drop. So why measure it if you're going to discount it? A higher mite drop every year for four years in a row means more mites. What some seem to be missing is that the author counted mite drops while he treated with Apistan. Unfortunately, he didn't count for a full brood cycle, which would have gotten most of the mites in the colony. His counts weren't an illustration of the bees cleaning out the mites due to small cell--it was an approximate measure of the mite infestation level at the end of the season! Clearly, in this study his small cell colonies built up more mites each year. However, upon looking at the data again, the 2006 counts do imply that small cell may have suppressed mite buildup somewhat. Even though there were more mites in the SC colonies, they hadn't received an apistan treatment the year before. Again, I'm not discounting an effect due to small cell, but this study doesn't really tell us much, other than that his SC group had higher mite levels each time he dropped the phoretic mites off with Apistan. >This lengthening of the phoretic period, (arguably the highest risk period >for varroa) Data by Martin and others would not support this. Phoretic varroa have very low mortality. Mites emerging with bees have extremely high mortality. > Relying on mite counts alone IMHO is a failure to properly assess a colony, which is of course (as we all know) should be based on ’over all performance’. The point I'd like to make is that the bees that can tolerate mites (Apis cerana and the Africans) rarely allow the mite level to exceed a 2% infestation on the adult bees. So depending upon the type of mite counts one makes (see my article in ABJ on comparison of various sampling methods), or at randyoliver.com), this level does have significance. Colonies with very high mite levels are time bombs waiting for viruses to explode. And Dee, I do understand about high mite drops in Sept being normal--I made that clear in my article on mite population dynamics. However, in this experiment, the drops were not natural, they were accelerated by Apistan. > culling colonies based on mite drop could perhaps be a selection against > two of the known mechanisms for mite resistance; grooming behavior and brood attractiveness. I suggest that selection of breeder queens be made on performance first, and mite level second. By mite level, I don't necessarily mean natural mite drop, unless you know how to interpret mite drop based upon seasonality. Far better to use accelerated mite drop with powdered sugar or oxalic, about mid August, in order to find which colonies allowed the smallest mite build up during the season, by whatever mechanisms. By the way, did I ever tell you that I measured the cell sizes of the last feral that I picked up? They ranged from 4.7 to 5.4 for worker cells. The pupae in the smaller cells looked tiny! Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:25:24 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: CCD & GMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Bob, Regardless of any health issues with GMO plants, we beekeepers are losing some of our best alfalfa pasture due to restrictions from the planting of Roundup Ready alfalfa! Randy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 09:54:56 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: mark berninghausen Subject: Re: New York City bees In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit "Peter L. Borst" wrote: From a 1999 article (http://www.cityfarmer.org/beekeepNY.html) > Two summers ago, David Graves, a veteran bee master who was on the roof helping Ms. Goodman tend the hives, knew of just one beehive in the five boroughs: now he is aware of 13 hives in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. And city beekeepers claim that there could be twice that number. But few beekeepers reveal their presence because under the New York City Health Code the activity is illegal. Section 161.01 bans keeping animals that are ''wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally inclined to do harm.'' An offender could be fined up to $2,000. And despite the NYS Dept. of Ag&Mkts knowledge of these colonies, they remain unregistered and uninspected. Maybe it's just a cost/benefit thing? Mark --------------------------------- Need a vacation? Get great deals to amazing places on Yahoo! Travel. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 13:34:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, I generally stick to bee biology and management, and leave politics to those more inclined. However, bee science and beekeepers in general stand to get some help from the government in the forms or research funding, and management of government lands with regard to pollinators. Danny Weaver, on behalf of the ABF, presented a great statement to congress regarding pollinators, and the beekeepers' request for funding. You can download it at http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/Media/File/Hearings/20070626/Testimony_Weaver.pdf This statement may help you to formulate letters to your representives and senators. We are a small industry, and it will take a substantial proportion of us to get off our duffs and write, in order to generate a show of support. It is easy to find you representative at http://www.house.gov/writerep/, and your senator at http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 17:39:00 -0600 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Josh Markle Subject: Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi all, I have a few hives is Southern Alberta. Only one of them is Italian, the others being Carniolan, and this Italian hive is being left behind. The Italian hive has two full brood boxes, is quite busy, and has a good laying queen, but the honey super we put on at the beginning of June (a little early, but we were experimenting) has received virtually no attention. Only today has the hive started to show interest, with about 40 bees being in there and trace amounts of honey starting to appear. The Carniolan hives we have, which are about 20 feet away, have already almost filled the honey supers we put on only a week ago. They are really going at full-tilt. The honey boxes are chocked full of bees and we are going to have to put on additional boxes this week. One difference is that we are using a queen excluder on the Italian hive, again just as an experiment. I also wanted to know if the bees are averse to storing honey in frames that previously held brood. Some of the frames in the Italian honey box may have been brood frames before. Also, we didn't even put second brood boxes on the Carniolan hives until June 1, 2007, whereas the Italian hive was wintered with two hives. These are all the differences I can think of and I am looking for some advice on what to do, if anything. I really like these Italians (because they seem to like me a whole lot more) so I want to see them do well. Also, any thoughts on queen excluders would be welcome. Thanks for the help, Josh ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 22:09:48 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: CCD & GMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Brian & All, >The science just is not there to point a finger at GMO's as being unsafe for human and honeybee consumption. If you buy into the research of the large pushers of chemicals and GMO then keep on munching on those GMO products. 95% of the so called science has been bought and paid for by the large AG corps. 5% has been done by independent researchers. No long term testing has been done. Millions are eating GMO genetics every day in the U.S.. >In my opinion the more real concern on GMO's is the transgenic transfer of pollen to other species, this is documented. I can see you know very little about GMO as the transgenic transfer is a big problem with seed savers ( big fight in Canada now over GMO canola contamination)but minor compared to the long term DNA effect on many species. Quite a bit on the internet about the GMO genetics effects in mice, hogs and dairy cattle. Take a look. Iowa farmers fed GMO corn and their cattle were sterile, looked like they were pregnant but only had bags of water, hogs which were mutated and could not walk. These are short term effects. What are the long term effects. Unknown as the FDA rubber stamped the GMO without any long term testing. Take a look at the GMO failures posted on the net. Hogs & cattle. Listen to the testimonials. >On a weekly basis I get people from this growing fringe group who shop our farmers market stalls. The group is growing by leaps and bounds and no longer could be called a fringe group. Most of us realize the FDA will not protect us. Does not now and never will. The current China problems should wake you up. At the market I do ( largest in the six state region) all the vendors belong to what you call a fringe group. We don't want GMO food nor more pesticides than is absolutely necessary. None is best but one or two on say apples is OK as long as you tell the consumers you sprayed and with what. You have to be certified organic to post the organic sign. Most my food comes from my fellow vendors which I trust. Organic and chemical free beef, free range chicken, organic vegetables. True the cost is not cheap to eat healthy but I feel lucky to be able to afford chemical and GMO free products. I like being able to buy directly from the farmer grower. Especially when they are in the small (but as Brian says ) growing group of "save the planet" people. I like to see farm products with insect damage. I simple cut the end the corn worm has ate off my sweet corn! A few insect holes does not hurt most products. I live on a farm and can spot sprayed veggies most of the time at our market. In hard times I truck farmed veggies to supplement my beekeeping. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 1 Jul 2007 23:56:11 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Josh writes: "One difference is that we are using a queen excluder on the Italian hive, again just as an experiment." Josh, There's lots of stuff on this in the archives. I have had mixed results using queen excluders. This spring when I went to put supers on I left the excluders off to get the bees to start working up there. I did this to three fairly strong Italian hives and one strong Carniolan hive. After they had started occupying the supers, I made sure the queens weren't in them and inserted the queen excluders. About a week and a half later I looked into the hives. The bees had pretty much abandoned the supers and the brood chambers were full of swarm cells. I should mention that I had noticed earlier that workers were struggling to get through the bars of the excluder. I have a feeling the QE's had something to do with encouraging the swarm response or at least in negating the benefit of adding the supers. I can't answer the question about old brood comb discouraging the storing of honey, but right now I'm feeling pretty negative about queen excluders. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 04:07:09 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: C Hooper Subject: Researchers Discover Compound Responsible for Manuka Honey's Anti-Bacterial Activity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; CHARSET=US-ASCII "Mystery" Healing Chemical in NZ Manuka Honey Found NZPA, 7/2/2007 http://apitherapy.blogspot.com/2007/07/researchers-discover-compound.html German scientists have identified the mystery chemical in New Zealand's manuka honey which is responsible for killing bacteria better than many antibiotics… ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:37:42 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: Keeping a colony in a nuc year round. Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>An announcement at your next beekeepers association meeting that free (exchange) frames of bees are available would likely lead to a healthy list of names willing to come and get them. This seems like the right thing to do on the surface. The main concern is foulbrood. I got burnt [in more than one way! :)] badly when I bought a nice, strong nuc from a local beekeeper [who has a lot of hives and the title of master beekeeper...] with clinical American foulbrood when I was getting into beekeeping years ago. It taught me a lesson not to buy or except frames from anyone... Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:59:17 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: New York City bees Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>Two summers ago, David Graves, a veteran bee master who was on the roof helping Ms. Goodman tend the hives, knew of just one beehive in the five boroughs: now he is aware of 13 hives in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. And city beekeepers claim that there could be twice that number. There was an article in Newsday about a year ago about a beekeeper with about 40 bee hives on several Manhattan roof tops including one hotel which let's him use their elevators to move hives... >>Section 161.01 bans keeping animals that are ''wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally inclined to do harm.'' Naturally inclined to harm... It should say naturally inclined to resort to self-defense. :) Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:22:22 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Rob Green Subject: Midwest Beekeeper magazine, free download In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed The July issue of Midwest Beekeeper is available at www.IndianaBeekeepingSchool.com. Downloads are free. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 08:26:50 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Questions MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello Josh, Steve & All, At times bees seem unwilling to move through QE into supers. I find these times rare with a strong hive but do see a few. I return wet( actually with a thin coating of honey not removed by the large extractors I use but would have been removed by giving the boxes back to the bees to clean up) supers in spring which gets the bees in those supers fast to clean up the honey plus fix the comb damaged by the uncapper. Even with wet supers at times a strong hive will simply ignore the supers. Removing the QE usually will work ( not a practice I use due to labor involved )but giving the bees an entrance into the supers above the excluder usually will help also which is what I do. Small piece of wood will work and then removed once the bees are in the supers and working. The Imirie shim works for many ( put on with supers and I have seen as many as three in use *during a flow* on a *strong* hive) and is sold by Brushy Mountain Bee supply if you do not want to make your own ( certainly not rocket science!). When the flow is in full swing I prop the tops up and let the bees enter from the top. The old masters used to raise the hive off the bottom board and let the bees enter the hive bottom from all sides. I have done but involves extra labor and time I am not willing to spend. Keeping weeds down around the flight path is well worth the effort in honey production (let alone in number of ticks and chiggers). Keeping weeds under control is the first step in getting a better honey crop. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 15:35:09 +0200 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Ron & Eefje Subject: Re: Researchers Discover Compound Responsible for Manuka Honey's Anti-Bacterial Activity In-Reply-To: <20070702040709.84d281a5f2f7df0ef38485a84124037d.d8d0abbd78.wbe@email.secureserver.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, Next of course they should be testing the Aussie Jarrah honey. If the claims by the West Australians are correct then Jarrah honey (which is only found on the west coast of Western Australia) should even surpass any Manuka honey in the anti-bacterial properties and by much. If the same chemical is involved as in the Manuka honey or if several chemicals are at play here needs to be seen though. Ron van Mierlo ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:55:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: CCD & GMO In-Reply-To: <001c01c7bc56$7459ccc0$2ebc59d8@BusyBeeAcres> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > 95% of the so called science has been bought and paid for by the large AG > corps. 5% has been done by independent researchers. No long term testing has > been done. Millions are eating GMO genetics every day in the U.S.. > Nice statistic. Where did you get it? Most of what I have read is not paid for by the "large AG corps". Scientific papers are peer reviewed. The ones I have read have disclosed their funding, so the usual culprits can be identified or discounted. However, studies posted on the net by advocacy groups have little impartial controls. It is interesting to see how they work with good science. They "cherry pick" valid studies and distort them to their own ends. GMO soybean pollination was an excellent example. They arrived at conclusions directly opposite that of the study, but that made the papers and was quoted by some on this list. > I can see you know very little about GMO as the transgenic transfer is a big > problem with seed savers ( big fight in Canada now over GMO canola > contamination)but minor > compared to the long term DNA effect on many species. Most of the seed saver issue is not with GMO seed but hybrid seed that is patented by Monsanto, among others. Farmers like to save seed but are not allowed to by Monsanto and the help of the US Patent Office. This issue has been around for many years. Does not matter if the seed is GMO or hybrid- it is patented and cannot be saved. As an aside, I believe it is Monsanto who is asking for pollinators for its GMO seed production! > Take a look at the GMO failures posted on the net. Hogs & cattle. Listen to > the testimonials. > > If what you describe is true, it would be all over the front pages of every paper in the US. You can say anything on the net. Most of the testimonials I have read about cancer cures on the net rely on the law of the survivor. If you are dead you cannot rebut the testimonial so it works every time. Plus, farmer's know that you can have weird offspring at any time, which happened well before GMO. Often the deformity would make the local papers. GMO corn is not new but has been around for 15 years in the nation's food supply. Any of the things described should now be easily documented by any reputable source and reporters would leap on it. Sells papers. Think CCD and what they have done with it from just a few quotable beekeepers and cell phone scientists. A small amount of perspective. GMO is not "FrankenFood" any more than hybrid crops. The only major issue with GMO corm was with one manufacturer's corn seed that used certain bacteria for the mods which could cause allergic reactions. That was caught early and removed and no problems since. We have the safest food supply in our history. Fringe is a relative term, since it could be considered from near zero to 25% depending on the side you are on. The organic movement as a whole is not fringe, but some parts of definitely are. That can be seen on this list with some more pure than others. The commercial producers have jumped on the organic bandwagon since it means greater profits from the same acreage. The whole thing about the contaminated spinach coming from an organic and pesticide user grower was an eye opener for me. Best of both worlds. The anti-GMO group is fringe. But to return to CCD, the jury is still out and, in my opinion, will be even after a general consensus is arrived at. The pesticide angle is being pushed by one big commercial beekeeper who had high mite loads before they collapsed from "CCD". GMO is always a favorite target. Even the CCD group is circumspect as to what the underlying cause is. Lots of conjecture and investigation, but, so far, nothing specific. We, however, are not as limited since we have our own axes to grind and who bothers to quote us as authoritative? The CCD group, in my opinion, is handicapped. The database is suspect because of the obvious lack of a good before picture and reliance on less that adequate or impartial reporters (beekeeper affected). I hear what Jerry has to say, but as long as the group relies on second hand information, which it is cost constrained to do for most of the data, it is suspect. We really have to remember that the best info we have to date is that about 5% of colony losses in the US can be looked at as possibly CCD. That is a large number especially if you are one of the affected beekeepers, but not compared with the remaining 20% caused by mites and other factors. Add to that the fact that CCD like symptoms have occurred many times in the past, and you have a distinct, manageable problem. Not a crisis that involves the end of GMO crops, pesticides, and cell phones. It seems that the best investment to make in these times is stock in Reynolds Aluminum. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 07:50:03 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Keeping a colony in a nuc year round. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > It taught me a lesson not to buy or except frames from anyone... Perhaps being overcautious, Waldemar. In my area of Northern Calif, bees become available for sale about April 1-15. Our main honeyflow begins May 15, and is over by the end of June. Packages don't cut it! I sell nucs for a living. I guarantee my nucs against AFB for 30 days, and make a point of not treating them with antibiotic prior. I burn AFB ruthlessley. I rarely need to replace a nuc due to disease of any sort. AFB spores are everywhere--unless you're isolated from all other beekeepers and ferals. Deal with it! Keep your bees well nourished, and use hygienic queens. We Calif beeks put our bees into almonds near out of staters who bring in pallets with every fourth colony a deadout waiting to be robbed. I'm reading a new book on controlling AFB in New Zealand, where antibiotics are illegal. Much lower incidence rate than we have here. Unfortunately, I can't imagine our industry ever going for it. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:14:29 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: New York City bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hey, that's interesting... West 113th St, and the Butler Library at Columbia U is just to the North, the article said? Well, I was speaking at Columbia just last week about non-bee subjects, and afterwards, I was asked to look at a Columbia U staff residence just a few blocks away from 113th. I was shown, judging from the sorties per minute, a very large colony that had set up shop in the hollow area between the layers of brick of the double-walled brick building 4 stories up. In the photo http://bee-quick.com/columbia_u.gif one can see unsuccessful attempts to patch the openings in the mortar and thereby starve the hive to death. (Not surprisingly, the bees found altenate entrances - the mortar is riddled with bee-sized holes.) They wanted the bees out, but not killed. They care. They have a resident who claims the usual life-threatening "allergy" to bees, yet carries no Epi-Pen. I was asked to subcontract under their pest control company to cover licensing and insurance issues. I explained that the job would be anything but cheap, moreso given that this was a "historic structure" demanding care in the removal and replacement of the brick to get the combs out, and would cost even more if I had to go in from the outside, rather than out from inside, as "height + bees = risk". They offered me a very nice fee. But this observation by Peter poses an ethical dilemma. I wonder if Mr. Graves and Ms. Goodman still have a hive on 113th. I know that Graves still sells lots and lots of "New York City Honey" every weekend at the farmers markets at prices you would not believe, so if he is truthfully labeling the honey as to its origin, perhaps these are his bees, and he'd like them returned. On the other hand, perhaps Columbia would want to recover their costs by back-billing my fees to Graves & Goodman for negligently letting a hive swarm in the middle of a city where beekeeping is not strictly legal, even though Graves sells so much "New York City Honey", he either has dozens of hives spread across the city, or misleads his customers. Columbia is my client in this little project. Their check already cleared. If I say nothing, I may get many more fun and exciting high-altitude colonies that need removing in the future. If I say something, I'd expose Graves and Goodman to regulatory problems, and perhaps the wrath of Columbia U. Suggestions? I'm inclined to remove the hive, and not speculate as to the possible source of the bees. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 12:23:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Janet A. Katz" Subject: Re: New York City bees In-Reply-To: <001b01c7bcbb$b051b700$0501000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: "If I say something, I'd expose Graves and Goodman to regulatory problems, and perhaps the wrath of Columbia U. Suggestions? I'm inclined to remove the hive, and not speculate as to the possible source of the bees." What ethical dilemma? The guy's got a website: http://www.bee-man.com/. How secret can a rooftop in NYC be. Gone up on yours lately? I can see an awful lot of rooftops from my sister's apartment on the upper west side and she's not even very high up. Obviously the Department of Health in NYC has more pressing problems than flying over the rooftops looking for Graves' hives. Must be more green in NYC than I thought since he claims each of his rooftop hives makes 50# a year. Janet A. Katz Chester, NJ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 18:21:23 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: New York City bees MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii > The guy's got a website: http://www.bee-man.com/. And he decided to illustrate it with a photo of a Bombus species?! Perhaps he's trying to confuse those NYC inspectors ..... G. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 11:08:48 -0800 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Tom Elliott Subject: Re: Questions In-Reply-To: <46883B14.5050904@ucalgary.ca> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Josh, It is not meaningful to draw any conclusions from any two hives. Two Italians or two Carniolans might react equally differently. Queen excluder questions have been tackled countless times over the years. Those who love them and those who hate them will neither one budge. > > I have a few hives is Southern Alberta. Only one of them is Italian, > the others being Carniolan, and this Italian hive is being left behind. Tom Elliott Chugiak, AK ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2007 23:03:37 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: CCD & GMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii > a segment of the population who knows nothing > about science but has fervent almost religious > beliefs that global warming and technology is > killing the planet and fast. Hi Brian and All People that are wrong about one issue are not necessarily wrong about another. In the case of global warming, the UN organisation IPCC has made efforts like never before to gain a scientific consensus in order to induce action from governments worldwide. Those folk that come to your farmer's market worried about the planet's climate are not 'a growing fringe', they are mainstream, completely aligned with the scientific mainstream. You can read about this unparalleled international scientific (if not political) consensus here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ The IPCC's insistence on only accepting repeated peer-reviewed work has left it open to criticisms that it is too conservative and is *underestimating* the crisis facing the planet. Its reports are bad enough as they stand: if we continue with 'business as usual' the world will be facing something between a mean global temperature rise of between 1.5 and 6C by the end of the century. Most observers consider that the lower estimates are unlikely to be correct and some believe that we could go beyong the 6C. Mean temperature rises mask the fact that the land masses will heat much more and the oceans much less. A temperature rise of say 6C over large parts of N America would leave much of the arable land desert. For the most accessible report on what is happening to the planet's climate, I'd recommend the summary for policy makers: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf You don't have to believe this if you don't want to, but unfortunately this *is* the scientific orthodoxy. And beekeeping? My opinion (yes, its just opinion) is that climate change has already claimed many American bee colonies. CCD doesn't appear to have one cause - it is probably a combination of stresses and amongst these stresses the record drought and high temperatures in 2006 will probably have played a role in weakening colonies, preventing late season brood raising, and possibly stimulating unsafe water collection. El Nino is now turning into La Nina, so the worst may be over this time, but it will be back with a vengence. best wishes Gavin ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 06:54:25 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: CCD and GMO MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>Those folk that come to your farmer's market worried about the planet's climate are not 'a growing fringe', they are mainstream, completely aligned with the scientific mainstream.<<< Thanks Gavin, for a great post. I have this argument a lot--enough so that I don't bother to argue any more. I expect the next point would be. "Oh, the UN? When did they ever get something right?" Next comes the idea that all scientists don't agree. Our current administration has delayed and watered down a report on this subject, by its own EPA, that would back up what you posted. Tying this to the drought and CCD is the first time I thought this way but I did write about the possibility that poor nutrition was a possibility. By the way, our Dept of Ag reported a study that our fruits and veggies have about half of the nutrition they had in the 1950s. Did you access that data? Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 09:38:49 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: GW In-Reply-To: <188297.34949.qm@web86204.mail.ird.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Gavin Ramsay wrote: > People that are wrong about one issue are not necessarily wrong about another. In the case of global warming, the UN organisation IPCC has made efforts like never before to gain a scientific consensus in order to induce action from governments worldwide. Those folk that come to your farmer's market worried about the planet's climate are not 'a growing fringe', they are mainstream, completely aligned with the scientific mainstream. > As were those who believed in Global Cooling back in the 1950s. The same hype was around then with the same certainty in the press as it is today. Time and Newsweek both were on the Global Cooling bandwagon, just as they are on GW today. Plus, you have a political organization behind the science today and lots of money to siphon off from developed countries (think USA). One problem with the weather is it is very difficult to predict just what will happen over the next 100 years much less 30 days. You can, however, look back and see what happened on a macro scale over the past 80 million years. Some interesting facts- A rapid (in historical terms) increase in temperature occurs before the start of each ice age and "global cooling". CO2 increases follow the warming and do not precede it. The earth has been warming for about the last 100 years.(Just like it did about 1000 years ago.) Inter-glacial periods last about 10,000 years and we are at the end of the most recent period.(Glacial periods last about 100,000 years, so stock up on mittens.) During the time temperature records have been kept, global temperature has matched the sun's activity- more active, higher temps, lower yields lower. The earth has had CO2 levels 18 times higher than today with no ill effects on temperature. (That fact made the NY Times.) More recently, the other planets are warming and the sun has been very active compared to normal. It is now less active but higher than normal for the end of a cycle. Also, when the last major warming period occurred 1,000 years ago, people prospered. When the earth then cooled it issued in the dark ages with famine and disease.Warm is better than cool. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas by a significant factor, not CO2. Methane is also a major contributor with termites and animals as the major culprits. Climate science is still in its infancy as is the study of the sun and its effect on the earth's climate, much less what is actually going on in the sun, long term. So the science is not settled on "Global Warming", especially since the proponents recognized a couple of years ago that the Earth's temperature was going down so now it is "Climate Change". Some scientists predict another "little Ice Age" to start about 2020. Here in Maine the last two days have almost set records for max lows for the day. We did set records for max lows on two days earlier in the year.That is very unusual.We have been below normal temperature for most of the year. If things continue, the earth will have cooled each of the past three years (which matches the sun's activity). We do not seem to be getting warmer, but cooler.Maybe the science in the 50s was better than the 90s. Which does track with the 80,000,000 year record rather than the past 10 years of GW. Bill Truesdell (Whose main project today is to cut firewood for winter to add CO2 and stop global cooling.) Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 07:47:05 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: GW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Bill Truesdell wrote: > As were those who believed in Global Cooling back in the 1950s. The same > hype was around then with the same certainty in the press as it is > today. Time and Newsweek both were on the Global Cooling bandwagon, just > as they are on GW today. I agree. Here's a look back on the predictions made on the first Earth Day in 1970 by the academic professionals of that era: University of California, Davis, professor Kenneth Watt: "If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. Š This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. We have about five more years at the outside to do something" University of Wisconsin Professor Reid Bryson said: "The rapid cooling of the earth since World War II is also in accord with the increased air pollution associated with industrialization and exploding population." North Texas State University professor Peter Gunter said : "Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions....By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine" Harvard biologist George Wald said: "Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind." Stanford University Ecologist Paul Ehrlich said: "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." "Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make," "the Green Revolution...is going to turn brown." "DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons "may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945." Washington University biologist Barry Commoner said: "We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation," Paul Cherubini El Dorado, Calif. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 11:42:08 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: GW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>Bill Truesdale wrote:" So the science is not settled on "Global Warming."<<< Actually with Alaska having the permafrost melting, creating the need to move settlements; With ice floes the size of Rhode island breaking off; with the ice that gives the polar bears a conduit to food melting, endangering them---I don't think anyone believes the earth isn't warming. A few dissenters still argue about the cause but most agree that we are the cause. If we aren't causing it, we are certainly adding to it. In either case we should stop some of what we are doing. Did you follow Gavin's link? Here's a link to your Agricultural Research Service that will bring this back to bees via nutrition in a drought. Note the language. "It's amazing what you can see just by looking" (Yogi Berra) http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2007/070530.htm Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 17:06:42 +0000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Gavin Ramsay Subject: Re: GW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ascii Hi Bill, Paul, Dick and All Thanks for the responses guys. I could add to Paul's list of unthinking, publicity-seeking and erroneous scientist quotes and give you more recent ones that appeared on a UK TV programme attempting to debunk climate change fears. Almost every argument that Bill raised was in the programme, and it reassured many here that the problem is spurious. It really isn't. I could counter every one of the points raised, though by then the moderators would tire of the debate. Bill quoted the press in relation to 'global cooling'. Perhaps one thing that we have learned collectively since CCD reared its head is that we cannot rely on the press to give an accurate impression. They love to portray a dramatic picture, and unsubstantiated doom and gloom gets more than its fair share of exposure. We need to listen to not just scientists that give us the picture we want to hear, but to assess the worth of those relating the story, and try to get at the real consensus of those that know the topic very well. For those of you that believe that CO2 lags behind climate change, or that the changes in the activity of the sun coupled with modulation by volcanic events and Earth circulatory systems explains recent trends in the Earth's climate, all I can do is plead with you to read that authoritative text (link copied again below - it is a 2.9Mb PDF file). The graphs alone make it crystal clear: models explaining the variation in both global and regional temperature agree well with the record until the last couple of decades (Figure SPM4). All now diverge, in step with the ever-rising load of both CO2 and methane in the atmosphere. Yes, water partially counters the effect, but the relative contributions of CO2, methane and water are well understood (see Figure SPM2). This 4th Assessment series of reports by the IPCC had one big change from the previous ones: they now attempted to quantify the likelihood of certain effects and predicted outcomes. For example, on methane: 'The global atmospheric concentration of methane has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 715 ppb to 1732 ppb in the early 1990s, and was 1774 pp in 2005 .... It is *very likely* that the observed increase in methane concentration is due to anthropogenic activities ....' In IPCC terms, 'very likely' means >90% certain. Dick: thanks for your comments. On minerals, I'm afraid that I'm no expert on CCD and can't really offer you anything on that. The comments on the effect of drought on CCD on late-season brood were first raised here by my compatriot and commercial beekeeper Murray McGregor, a man always worth paying attention to. best wishes to all Gavin PS Those that would like to post their views here on the topic - please do have a look at the distilled wisdom of hundreds of the world's climatologists and see if your questions have been answered already: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_SPM-v2.pdf ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 10:52:02 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 $5 to read reprints of articles already paid for by a magazine. Its a lot like Bee-L, or a blog, but without the ego. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:48:47 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: GW In-Reply-To: <000d01c7bd88$b8515b90$6401a8c0@NOTEBOOK> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Everything Dick Marron pointed out as major calamities to our planet have happened in the past many times. The dust bowl of the 30s can easily happen again. Weather is not static. The polar icecap does not stay in one place. It actually moves from one side to the other.Polar bears can swim 60 miles for good reason. They know what it is like up there and that they have to go long distances for food. Giant ice sheets have been breaking off from Antarctica for centuries. We just have not been down there long enough to know what is normal and what is not. Several "poster child for GW" glaciers have been dropped because they are now growing. Kilimanjaro's snow cap is not receding because of GW, another poster child. Even the proponents of GW say that we really cannot do anything to stop it. Kyoto, if fully implemented will only slow it by a few years. And the US is the only developed country that came close to the Kyoto targets, and it is not a signatory. Most others want out, like Canada and NZ. We are allied with China, Japan and Australia to solve the human emissions problem scientifically, not by income re-distribution. If you look at the carbon credit system, it really does nothing to stop carbon emissions, just lets you do so with permission and big bucks to the middlemen. (Think Enron.) The most interesting thing about CO2 is that, as I said, it increases after rapid warming starts at the end of an inter-glacial period, but it plummets after the cold sis established. CO2 lags climate change. So maybe, if we really do get a handle on CO2 and reduce it, the Law of Unintended Consequences will kick in and the Ice Age we have been forestalling will arrive. The problem with something like GW is that you really cannot discuss it rationally anymore, since the "science on GW is settled". Actually, it is now quasi-religious and a very political (because lots of money is involved) honey pot (see I got beekeeping in). So I suggest we leave this thread and let it die, but only after whoever wishes gets the last word. I certainly would not want to shut off debate. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 20:06:16 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: GW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>With ice floes the size of Rhode island breaking off; with the ice that gives the polar bears a conduit to food melting... The above hits the spot. The melting polar caps is key in this discussion. The polar caps reflect a good chunk of solar radiation back into space. With the ice gone the earth is expected to absorb a lot of this heat leading to quicker warming up. The ice in Greenland is melting at some double the rate predicted 5-10 years ago. [The melting ice is uncovering new islands. :)] Clearly, we don't have good algorithms to predict the speed of warming. The permafrost in Siberia is receding. It's a verifiable fact. If it continues or accelarates it will release vast amounts of trapped methane into the atmosphere which is expected to warm up the atmosphere. There are paradoxical developments possible, too. With the north pole area warming, the critical ocean water temperature difference that drives the North Atlantic conveyor may disappear. The Gulf stream, that warms Europe, is the result of this massive water movement. If, and it may be a big if, the NA conveyor and the Gulf stream stop, northern Europe (British Isles, Scandinavia) may experience a rapid cooling possibly leading to an ice age. You won't be able to grow palm trees in Ireland anymore. So we may see deserts advance around the equator and an ice age in the north. But, at least for a while, beekeeping will continue since honey bees are so adaptable to different climates. We humans with our overpopulation are not as likely to fare as well. Waldemar Long Island, NY (expected to be mostly under water if most of the ice melts and ocean levels rise 100-200 ft) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 15:01:12 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I have a different take on that shopworn idiom. > Not feeding us, but feeding UPON us. > Parasites. Sounds like what the keepers in the ccd camp are doing to the tax payers > 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, First, it was just a little more money...., Now, we lost 60 days of crucial time. Give me a break, I've never have heard so many excuses in my life. > 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? Now its fear tactics, we will all lose our bees unless we flush more money down the drain. > Not even you, even though it would teach you a lesson. I could go for a lesson, so far all I've learned here is how to piss and moan about this so called CCD. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 08:26:48 +1000 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: queenbee Subject: Re: GW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Leaving aside whether GW is natural, man made or a bit of both, there is an argument that there could be an upside for beekeepers. There may be crops grown in areas that did not support them before. Warmer temperatures may cause some plants to yield better. So it is not necessarily all doom and gloom. Trevor Weatherhead AUSTRALIA Living where I will not be affected by rising sea levels. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 18:36:00 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hey folks! Let's try to stay on topic. And while we're at it perhaps = take a refreshing look at the guidelines for posting at: = http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm =20 Aaron Morris - Thinking BEE-L has been, well, not stellar lately. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:00:29 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "deknow@netzero.net" Subject: Re: GW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ...i liked the planet better when the climate was static. when was that exactly? to bring this back on topic, given the 100million year old bee in amber: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6084974.stm ...it's reasonable to assume that bees (probably before the "honey bee proper" came to be) survived the (probable) asteroid impact that wiped out the dinosaurs. i don't think a little climate change (or even a lot) will wipe them out. deknow -- Bill Truesdell wrote: Everything Dick Marron pointed out as major calamities to our planet have happened in the past many times. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 00:38:32 -0400 Reply-To: james.fischer@gmail.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > I could go for a lesson, so far all I've learned here is > how to piss and moan about this so called CCD. Well, Mr. Jarrett, the TV says that if you moan when you piss, you should see your doctor at once, and ask your doctor about FloMax, but why do you think so many people are so concerned about this so-called CCD? a) Is it a conspiracy to defraud the taxpayers? b) Are the beekeepers and researchers involved delusional? c) Are the beekeepers and researchers involved just stupid? d) Something else? > Now its fear tactics, we will all lose our bees unless we > flush more money down the drain. I don't think anyone has ever thought that we will all loose our bees, but we've seen some operations loose enough hives to put their future in the business at risk. So SOMEONE will likely "loose all their bees", or enough bees to put them out of business, and since we don't know much about CCD, we don't know how to predict who, when, where, how, or why. We may have a sword of Damocles over our heads, but we don't know which of our heads it hangs over. Could be mine, could be yours, could be that other fellow over there. Could be that its no longer hanging at all. I'd rather spend the money, even if to only find that is was all nothing but an unlikely combination of events that we can charge off to "bad luck". At least we will know. But I think it is a pretty safe bet that the number of verified cases witnessed first-hand so far by multiple skilled people at the same time shows that it can't be mere "bad luck". So, it could be you that "is taught a lesson" about the perils of not supporting well-funded science for our little corner of agriculture, and listening with care to what the researchers and extension people say. Many who came before you learned that lesson too late. Beekeepers were slow to react to tracheal mites when they started infesting colonies. It wasn't until large numbers of hives started dying that anyone took the problem seriously. Same thing happened with varroa. Complacency killed many hives, and beekeepers learned "the hard way". We still haven't learned about Nosema as a group. The bulk of us still pretend that it does not exist. This is a joke, given that the bulk of us are found to have nosema in our operations every time someone does some sampling. Same thing with EVERY problem we've ever had in beekeeping - we wait until we are lying in a ditch bleeding from a cracked skull to ask about the suggested interval for replacing the brake pads on our bikes, and of course we would never wear helmets, as they are for sissies. So, if history is any guide, I can quote Bogart in "Casablanca" about the perils of not taking such things seriously as early as possible: "You'll regret it. Maybe not today. Maybe not tomorrow, but soon and for the rest of your life." So, all together now, what's the price of honey? The price of honey is Eternal Vigilance! ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2007 23:42:01 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi All, First, let me apolgize for rising to Jim's bait, and allowing the discourse perhaps stray from being as civil as I prefer. I think the world of Jim, and feel that he is one of the most intellegent people I've known. I also sometimes totally disagree with him. This is one of those instances. I have spoken with people who were in Washington last week at the hearings, and they paint a very different picture than Jim does. I am researching now to clarify the facts, and will share what I find, whether it supports Jim's criticisms, or puts the lie to them Jim, please allow me to civilly reply to some of your statements. > In the case at hand, we were slowed down for 2 crucial months > when evidence was still fresh. I'm trying to confirm whether or not this is true. > 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. As I understand it, they had. I believe that national pollinator week was in the works before CCD. I'll confirm this, too. > Could it be that they saw our problem as a vehicle to get > some attention for their own agenda? Or could they have generously tried to help us, since we would both benefit from being included in the farm bill. > 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. Yes, but the congressional staffers who do the actual work are begging for information about the bee industry, and wonder where our lobbyists are. > What delayed the Senate? In April, they were fully briefed. > The change in focus clearly indicates that they were lobbied. This is exactly what I intend to find out. >> 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! I glad that we found something to agree on! : ) > 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! I invite the List to read the "added conservation language." I've read all three bills, and my impression is that any references to habitat or native bees are minor, and likely to make the passage of the bills more likely. I'll let the readers decide for themselves. > Nope, I can't wish that upon anyone. > Not even you, even though it would teach you a lesson. You're right Jim, I wouldn't wish CCD on anyone. But I don't know what lesson I'd learn. I'm not a politician, but the congressional staffers are more aware of the reality of how to get laws passed. I'll know more after I speak to more of them. > > 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. Hey, thanks for the plug, Jim! You know damn well that the $5 goes to pay for my website administrator, so that the many beekeepers who don't subscribe to ABJ or Bee Culture can read the information. I'm not retired, nor well to do. The payment by the journals doesn't nearly cover the time I spend in research and writing the articles, as you well know. I'm a hardscrabble beekeeper who makes a living at beekeeping, and the time I put into research and sharing the information in articles is direly hurting my bee business. Indeed, the time I'm spending right now in trying to help the industry to avoid political damage from overstated criticism of our allies is taking up my valuable bee moving time. Talk's cheap. Hard research, clear writing for practical application, and website setup and maintenance are all expensive. Jim, if you (or anyone else) want to donate some of your profits from your high-paying bee removal job to pay off my web administrator for the work he's done in getting the site up, I'd be more than glad to put up all the info totally free of charge! Respectfully and fondly yours, Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:17:29 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dave Cushman Subject: Re: GW In-Reply-To: <001c01c7bdc1$40abb0c0$5d90453d@new1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Trevor > there is an argument that there could be an upside for beekeepers. > There may be crops grown in areas that did not support them before. That statement rings alarm bells for me, if things shift like that the whole balance of the local ecosystem will shift, I would expect this to lead to more unstable beekeeping conditions rather than give a benefit. Regards & Best 73s, Dave Cushman, G8MZY http://website.lineone.net/~dave.cushman or http://www.dave-cushman.net Short FallBack M/c, Build 6.02/3.1 (stable) ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:48:39 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Drought MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/us/04drought.html?th &emc=th ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 06:51:18 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > but why do you think so many people are so concerned > about this so-called CCD? I don't, many keepers are sick of hearing about. > I'd rather spend the money, Sure, as long as it's not your's Jim, even I gave a donation to Randy, Not because he ask for it, but because he has earned it and showed he is worthy of some help. I wish I could say that for the CCD camp. > Beekeepers were slow to react to tracheal mites when they > started infesting colonies. It wasn't until large numbers > of hives started dying that anyone took the problem seriously. That's still going on today as we speak, Just look what has happened to the condition of bees since Checkmite & Apistan lost their touch. Here's one for you Jim, How many keepers are feeding 10-15 pounds of pollen sub? this will help greatly to the survival of a colony in most parts of the U.S. > Same thing happened with varroa. Complacency killed many > hives, and beekeepers learned "the hard way". Yes very true, then they blame it on CCD. > We still haven't learned about Nosema as a group. The bulk > of us still pretend that it does not exist. This is a joke, > given that the bulk of us are found to have nosema in our > operations every time someone does some sampling. Very very true, and again they blame it on CCD. The thing I find fascinating is, WE know that Nosema, Varroa, Tracheal & Nutrition problems are killers, and allot of times are Not dealt with properly, but somehow this CCD sends folks on a wild goose chase. I think the two go hand in hand. > So, all together now, what's the price of honey? Ah... the NHB would help, but they spent all there money on CCD. P.S. FLOWMAX, I didn't know what it was, sorry, but I guess when I get to your age I will ask you for advice.:) The rookie keeper Keith ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 23:57:23 +0100 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Peter Edwards Subject: Re: Researchers Discover Compound Responsible for Manuka Honey's Anti-Bacterial Activity MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Could be bad news for NZ beekeepers - no doubt it will soon be manufactured for far less than the £12 per lb that manuka fetches round here! Presumably we can now find out if other honeys contain methylglyoxal. Best wishes Peter Edwards beekeepers@stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk www.stratford-upon-avon.freeserve.co.uk/ ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 11:18:39 GMT Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "waldig@netzero.com" Subject: Re: GW Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit >>...there is an argument that there could be an upside for beekeepers. There may be crops grown in areas that did not support them before. This would be the case in the eastern US where plant species [and agricultural crops] would gradually move northward. In the middle and western US, on the other hand, vast desert would open up. Waldemar ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 07:41:28 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Aaron Morris Subject: Re: GW In-Reply-To: <20070705.041839.1721.1@webmail19.dca.untd.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > There may be crops grown in areas that did not > support them before. Possibly true, but there may also be crops that grow in a given area that may not grow there in the future. If planting zone four globally warms into planting zone 6, plants that need zone 4 may die out in the globally warmed zone. New England worries it may lose its maple syrup industry. In beekeeping terms, I may need to retool my beekeeping calendar to be more in tune to seasons as they progress in say Delaware (where EAS 2007 will be held, early registration deadline is next week) than those to which I am accustomed in upstate New York. Truth is, we really don't know what will be the effect of this generally accepted phenomenon. Aaron Morris - thinking speculation is a poor substitute for fact. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 13:38:22 -0700 Reply-To: k.kellison@earthlink.net Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Kathy Kellison Subject: Emailing: ab_771_bill_20070628_amended_sen_v94 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Hi All, For those of you interested in the anti-bee legislation on going in CA. it passed committee on Tuesday. However , it appears the teeth of the bill were retracted and legislates for a working group to identify compromise/coexistance guidelines for plantings of seedless mandarin Regards, Kathy ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:55:42 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Emailing: ab_771_bill_20070628_amended_sen_v94 Comments: To: k.kellison@EARTHLINK.NET MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > For those of you interested in the anti-bee legislation on going in CA. it passed committee on Tuesday. However , it appears the teeth of the bill were retracted and legislates for a working group to identify compromise/coexistence guidelines for plantings of seedless mandarin If the legislators have not got the backbone to tell the mandarin people what needs to be done then I will. Buy nets! End of problem! The beekeepers were here first! Grandfather clause should apply! The mandarin people had a truly seedless variety and then planted another without *long term* testing! Stupid and now they want the beekeepers to pay for their stupidity! If this bill goes through then I would suspect money and lobbyists are behind the bill and not common sense! Legislation will not solve the problem. Beekeepers WILL slip hives in on orange and you WILL get seeds. What of the thousands of hobby beekeepers which keep bees within two miles of mandarin groves? Will they lose the right to keep bees for enjoyment and pollinate their own gardens & fruit trees? Perhaps the legislators will pass bird legislation to protect grape growers from bird damage. No birds allowed within 2 miles of grape vineyards! No bird feeders allowed in yards within two miles of grape vineyards as the practice encourages birds to stay in the area. No exceptions to the bird feeder rule! I am a very small fruit grower but bought nets for my trees. End of problem! What of the other pollinators which visit the mandarin blooms? Perhaps the legislators should add a clause to keep those out also. Maybe a large sign posted every so often saying : " No pollinators allowed" Sincerely, Bob Harrison beekeeper -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 12:15:17 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit rather vauge list of pie in the sky initiatives. not sure what the benefit will be if beeks keep dumping harsh treatments into their hives and remain ignorant concerning varroa mite treatments. likewise stressful migratory practices will likely continue $$. lots of money chasing undefined problems but thats typical of how our government spends taxpayers money. If CCD is past history and does not reappear this fall how much money should be spent on fall dwindle when we have better understood issues facing the industry? http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/06/MNG1VQRN6B1.DTL (excerpt) Penn State University researchers say the list of possible causes, on which Boxer and her supporters want to intensify research, includes a return of periodic infestation by mites and associated diseases that have hit bee colonies before, an unknown fungus, contamination from pesticides, poor nutrition brought on by swings in weather or a combination of all or some of these factors. The U.S. Interior Department says the population loss among all pollinators could be tied to such other factors as continued loss of habitat to the spread of human sprawl and competition from such non-native species as Africanized killer bees that are spreading north from the southeastern United States. In addition to more research money, federal authorities are considering other ideas for fostering recovery of pollinator populations. These include setting aside pesticide-free land on the government's vast holdings of hundreds of millions of acres, especially in the West, for colonies of bees and butterfly gardens. The government has also started working with Canada and Mexico on a North American effort at preserving habitat and combatting invasive species. The Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Defense Department and the Bureau of Land Management have signed agreements with San Francisco's Coevolution Institute to educate the public about the problem. The institute, which was a driving force behind the recent first National Pollinator Week, has endorsed Boxer's bill, said spokesman Thomas Van Arsdall. "It's a challenging budget situation,'' he conceded, saying money for the pollinators will have to compete with lots of other interests when Congress passes its agricultural spending bill. But he said the honeybees' plight has drawn attention to the overall issue of pollinators' decline. "We too often take pollinators' services for granted. They're just there. But now we're starting to recognize that the value of these honeybees far exceeds the value of their honey." ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:48:00 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Drought MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, If some of last years CCD problems were drought related in many areas it seems the situation is setting up again in the west ( and southeast). Early reports say many bee pastures have burned up from north to south in the west. In severe drought conditions its hard to fool the bees into brooding up. We started early last year ( August) feeding pollen patties (real pollen) and light syrup to encourage the bees to raise winter bees. We got about half the brood we would normally get. My heart goes out to my fellow beekeepers in California and adjoining states.You are getting what the Midwest got last year. Fall flowers will be short. We are getting rains as needed once a week and the prospect for a strong fall flow will soon be reality. With a strong fall flow the bees ignore for the most part corn pollen. Also tend to really brood up. The southeast is getting what the Midwest got last year also. Early reports are very poor honey crops and prospects for fall flows getting dimmer by the week. One county in Georgia reported the driest year in 85 years. In our area looks like we are seeing a second bloom of white Dutch brought about by the huge amount of rain in a short time followed by temps in the 90 F. and high humidity. We get a big rain then 5-7 days of dry weather (perfect for honey production) If temperature extremes continue in the U.S. then migratory beekeepers need to act fast to move bees into areas of bloom. Staying in an area of severe drought can have many problems which can last into the next season. In California once the bee pasture has burned up then without heavy rains the fall flowers will not be there for the bees. Our fall rains last year were simply not enough to provide fall bee pasture. Can those in areas of drought report to the list what they are seeing with their bees? Sincerely, Bob Harrison -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:09:03 -0500 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bob Harrison Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hello All, > not sure what the benefit will be if beeks keep dumping harsh treatments into their hives and remain ignorant concerning varroa mite treatments. The varroa mite has been in the U.S. now right at two decades. In the early years the above would have been true. In fact at a national meeting L. Cutts (head of the Florida Apiary dept for 18 years) said he checked the number of chemical strips sold against the number of hives and he figured enough strips were sold to only treat 5% of the U.S. hives so what were the other beekeepers using? The statement was made years ago. Over the last few years bee supply houses have had trouble keeping ,Api Life Var, Apigard and Mite Away two in stock. In our area these are the three main treatments in use for varroa. The larger outfits are mostly using liquid formic in methods learned from the Canadians and many also use oxalic acid on the winter cluster. I only post the above to clear up the constant jabber by some beekeepers about the use of illegal harsh chemicals by some *unknown* group of beekeepers. Both national organizations are pushing for use of formic and oxalic acid similar to the way its used in Canada. Not some new unknown chemical treatment. I do hear rumors of ignorant beekeepers using higher and higher doses of the old favorites but those telling me never seem to know of the beekeepers and it seems only a rumor. Certainly not happening in the circles I travel in. >likewise stressful migratory practices will likely continue $$. If you do not want China to supply all your food instead of only "little Fluffy's" pet food ( how is Little Fluffy doing? Maybe he/she did not die but what are the long term effects of the China dog food?)then you better hope migratory beekeeping does not end. Out of State beekeepers supply over half the California almond pollination. if they stopped coming then Mexican beekeepers would be quick to fill the void. Several commercial beekeepers are openly firming ties south of the border. Others are quietly making trips south. The same people which are bringing you the mandarin issue will be the people to open the doors to Mexican hives. Commercial beekeepers with ties to Mexican beekeeping operations are not going to speak against the border opening. A few are rubbing their hands together thinking of all the easy money to be made brokering those hives! If California beekeepers can not even stop getting pushed back from the mandarins and lose yards they have used every year for decades how can they expect to keep Mexican hives out? As long as U.S. beekeepers can keep the almond growers taken care of then the border will stay closed. Beekeepers did a good job this year and despite the high cost of pollination the growers I have spoke with are pleased! The first year beekeepers fail to provide almond pollination the next year the border will open which is the prediction I make on BEE_L. Each year the numbers of hives needed for almond pollination goes up and the number of commercial beekeepers goes in the other direction. bob -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 20:29:03 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: K&W Jarrett Subject: Re: Drought MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bob wrote, > Can those in areas of drought report to the list what they are seeing with > their bees? It is so dry here the grass hoppers are starving. Yesterday's temps were 108 here , 115 up north. Rain, what's that, last time I saw some in early March, wont be back till late Oct. But life goes on, the bees will too. Keith ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 19:28:35 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Comments: cc: Kim Flottum , JoTraynor@aol.com, Joe Graham MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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" To: 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 * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 08:31:04 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Brian Fredericksen cited: > http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/06/MNG1VQRN6 B1.DTL and quoted thusly: > "But he said the honeybees' plight has drawn attention to the overall > issue of pollinators' decline." Well, the Coevolution Institute certainly has done its darndest to USE and MANIPULATE the plight of the honey bee to draw attention to the unrelated issue of native pollinators, even though there is very little connection between the two subjects. Now I'm sure that none of us (beekeepers) begrudge the money and attention being focused on native pollinators, but can we endorse the attempt to use problem "A" to justify tax dollars to work on different problem "B"? Isn't this being party to fraud? That's my basic problem here - the truth is being twisted around to support an agenda that has nothing to do with agriculture at all. > "It's a challenging budget situation,' he conceded, saying money > for the pollinators will have to compete with lots of other interests > when Congress passes its agricultural spending bill." Yes, it certainly is "challenging" to attempt to divert money appropriated for agriculture to issues of general habitat and environmental degradation. > "We too often take pollinators' services for granted. They're just there. > But now we're starting to recognize that the value of these honeybees far > exceeds the value of their honey." Note how "honey bees" are classified as "pollinators" only when it meets the needs of the Coevolution Institute. And "they're just there"? Clearly, this fellow needs to help load and unload hives in the dead of night for a few weeks so he can find out how the pollinators get to the crops. OK, so what? Why should we care? We become party to a fraud upon the citizens of the USA, who pay taxes, and expect the money to be appropriated based upon honest and factual deliberations. Further, the STATED GOAL of these advocates of native pollinators is to COMPETE with beekeepers: http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_act ion.html "...with the decline in the number of managed honey bee colonies from diseases, parasitic mites, and Africanized bees - as well as from Colony Collapse Disorder - it is important to increase the use of native bees in our agricultural system. Hundreds of species of native bees are available for crop pollination. Research from across the country demonstrates that a wide range of native bees help with crop pollination, in some cases providing all of the pollination required. These free, unmanaged bees provide a valuable service, estimated recently by scientists from the Xerces Society and Cornell University to be worth $3 billion annually in the US." That sounds like a sales pitch from someone who would be quite happy to see beekeepers become as obsolete as buggy-whip makers. Go search their web site and their promotional materials to find out just how seldom they mention honey bees (or any managed pollinator) in a positive way. Go look for a Honey Bee on the new stamps issued for "National Pollinator Week". Go try and find any actual support for Honey Bees and beekeepers in their materials. It isn't there. To them, we are "part of the problem". Consider the June 26th hearings of the Senate Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans to address the "CCD" problem and review a Senate "companion bill" to HR1709, ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1709 ) a terse little bill introduced in March that requested emergency CCD funding and nothing else. (Go ahead and read it - it is short and sweet.) So, what is the hearing named? http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=1 10 "The Birds and the Bees: How Pollinators Help Maintain Healthy Ecosystems" Uh oh... "birds". "Healthy ecosystems". Not agriculture at all. Here are a few statements made by Congressman Blumenauer in the Senate hearings held >>>3 FULL MONTHS<<< after the introduction of HR1709: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx?TID=2324 1) "Many do not realize that agricultural production is heavily dependent on pollinators. In the US, for example, it is almost exclusively dependent on wild native bees." 2) "Native bees are also crucial to the health of our ecosystems, as they are more versatile than honey bees." 3) "It is apparent that we put our agricultural production - and food supply - at risk when we rely on a single species, such as the honey bee, for pollination." Who wrote this misleading stuff for this Congressman? Oh wait, he mentioned a few suspects: "I would like to recognize... the Coevolution Institute... Additionally, I would like to highlight the Xerces Society, located in my hometown of Portland, Oregon..." What bothers me in all this is the twisting of facts. All three of the statements written for the Congressman to read are misleading given the realities of practical agricultural pollination. The Alfalfa Leafcutter Bee, the specific types of Bumblebees used in greenhouses, and the Honey Bee are all "introduced species", and they do the overwhelming majority of the pollination that puts food on the table. The practical applications of "native pollinators" are so limited that there is not a single food or seed crop that can be said to be effectively and economically pollinated by any "native pollinator". These advocates of native pollinators can't list even a single example crop in their own promotional materials beyond experimental attempts. The food crops that are pollinated are themselves introduced, hybridized, and overtly bred. Why should we expect "native pollinators" to reliably work plants that are not native? We work in agriculture. There is little or nothing "natural" about it. It is how we feed so many people for so little money. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 10:02:09 -0400 Reply-To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: James Fischer Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Randy expressed confusion thusly: > 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. The problem, in a nutshell, is that I expected that all would focus on the meat and potatoes work that directly impacts fruits and vegetables. But there have yet to be any appropriations bills introduced. That's what disappoints me. Understanding the depth of my dismay may require a civics refresher. There are two kinds of bills - "Authorizations" and "Appropriations". "Authorizing" (or "Enabling") legislation is pure philosophy and has grand goals. It is where everyone grandstands and poses and does their best to look like they are firm supporters of hot issues. Yes, dollar values are included, but often these dollar values are far beyond what can be justified by the facts of the matter. Often, the dollar amounts are breathtaking. "Appropriations" are where the rubber meets the road. Money is parceled out in specific fiscal years to fund very specific efforts. Appropriations are never very glamorous, and they are about as exciting as trying to balance a checkbook. To put the contrast in terms to which we can relate, let's assume we want to go to the beach this summer. We can "Authorize" ourselves to buy yachts in the event that we win the lottery and dream of how much fun that would be, but when it comes time to do "Appropriations", we look at our bank balances, and we find that need to cut back on eating out and movies to set aside enough money to spend a few days at the beach this summer. What happened this spring is that lobbying resulted in a stated goal of not going to the beach, not buying a yacht, but nothing less than the restoration of environmentally friendly sailing ships to the high seas. Yes, that would be nice, but the plan is very very grand, far beyond even the dreams of a lottery winner, and a long-term project. Meanwhile, we still don't even any tangible money to even go to the beach! All we really wanted to do was to go to the beach for a long weekend! Remember? All the bills that have taken up everyone's attention have been ENABLING LEGISLATION. Here are the pending bills that mention "pollinator(s)": 1a) Pollinator Habitat Protection Act of 2007 (House)[HR 2913] 1b) Pollinator Habitat Protection Act of 2007 (Senate)[S 1496] 2a) Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 (Senate)[S 1694] 2b) Pollinator Protection Act (House)[HR 1709] 3a) Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007 (Senate)[S 919] 3b) Healthy Farms, Foods, and Fuels Act of 2007 (House)[HR 1551] 4) Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007 (House)[HR 2337] 5) EAT Healthy America Act (House)[HR 1600] 6) NOURISH Act of 2007 (House)[HR 2401] Not a one of them appropriates a dime. They "authorize" millions, much more than is needed over the short term for our little "CCD" problem. None of them are ready for a vote by either full body. Clearly, everyone somehow drifted away from the pragmatic focus on a single agricultural problem, and have allowed the grand schemes of those who are concerned with "native pollinator habitats" to distract our elected representatives. Yes, I agree that there has not been an appropriate sense of urgency. Such a sense of urgency is appropriate in regard to APPROPRIATIONS. There is nothing in any of the enabling legislation that would have prevented the short-fuse appropriation of a reasonable amount of money to do the work that could have been done this spring and summer. The appropriation would have certainly been for a tiny subset of the embarrassingly massive amounts of money mentioned in the various pieces of enabling legislation. But everyone has become distracted with dreams and grand schemes, and I fear that any chance to get any funding on any sort of "emergency" basis may be lost, as the schemes have now become so grand that terms like "habitat" have been worked into the title of bills. Everyone involved has postured and posed and made noises, and we still have no idea when and where the first dime will appear. Any wonder why I am getting a little testy? ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 12:34:09 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Bill Truesdell Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Comments: To: bee-quick@bee-quick.com In-Reply-To: <001801c7c092$b06b03b0$0501000a@j> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: > The practical applications of "native > pollinators" are so limited that there is not a single > food or seed crop that can be said to be effectively and > economically pollinated by any "native pollinator". > These advocates of native pollinators can't list even > a single example crop in their own promotional materials > beyond experimental attempts. I believe cherries are a poster child since some orchards are pollinated by Mason Bees. That, however, is the only one I know of. Bill Truesdell Bath, Maine ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 13:56:52 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: =?windows-1252?Q?Steve_Noble?= Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Jim writes: "Everyone involved has postured and posed and made noises..." If you change that to: "Everyone involved posturing and posing and making noises." you have about as clear a definition of the political process as I can think of. It takes a lot of patience to wade into that morass. Steve Noble ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 11:41:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >review a Senate "companion bill" to HR1709, ( http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-1709 ) > a terse little bill introduced in March that requested emergency > CCD funding and nothing else. Jim, this link takes me to HR1709, where can I read the companion bill? My source in Washington tells me that any lobbyists for the various beekeepers associations need to make the point more clear about the urgency of our need for an emergency appropriation. I'm not politically connected, and don't even know who those lobbyists would be (other than Danny Weaver on behalf of the ABF)--perhaps you could use your connections to encourage the passage of an emergency appropriation, and to let the List know how we could help. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 16:39:20 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: "Peter L. Borst" Subject: Long Island Honey Plants MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Greetings! All you Long Islanders, could you tell me what your main honey plants are down state? Just curious to see if it is similar to upstate -- or not. -- Peter L. Borst Ithaca, NY USA http://picasaweb.google.com/peterlborst ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 17:03:44 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Dick Marron Subject: Pollinator MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jim and Randy, It's good to see you boys playing nice. What is a lot better is the information this thread has produced. I now understand the process and difficulties better than I would have. Thanks to both of you. Who was it that said, "Politics is the art of the possible?" Dick Marron ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 17:06:53 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Drought Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit We have a strange line in the sand this year, NW Minnesota and Eastern North Dakota are running 3-6 inches of precip above average. The SE portion of Mn and Western Wisconsin is 3-6 inches below average. I'm located on the drier side of the line and we're just finishing up with a boomer basswood crop averaging 60-80 pounds. Our mid summer Sweet Clover flow comes next into the 20 or so of July. Eastern North Dakota should see a potentially big year with ample moisture and reasonable temps in the upper 70's-80's in the long term outlook for the main honey flow during July. Last year the Dakota's burned up during a hot dry summer and many locations were a bust. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 17:21:02 -0400 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Brian Fredericksen Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 21:09:03 -0500, Bob Harrison wrote: >I do hear rumors of ignorant beekeepers using higher and higher doses of the >old favorites but those telling me never seem to know of the beekeepers and >it seems only a rumor. Certainly not happening in the circles I travel in. > give the Mn dept Ag a call and find out how their shop rag inspections are going this year. I hear the citations are up over last year. not all of these boys have MN plates on their trucks either. 90% of the ciations are not published. They news released the big operator last year for show. >>likewise stressful migratory practices will likely continue $$. > >If you do not want China to supply all your food instead of only "little >Fluffy's" pet food ( how is Little Fluffy doing? Maybe he/she did not die >but what are the long term effects of the China dog food?)then you better >hope migratory beekeeping does not end. All I'm saying is beeks will do what they feel they need to do to bring home the bacon and take care of their bills. My thoughts have more to do with government funding, CCD and making some real changes. Bob I know you are smart guy and you don't expect a silver bullet to come out of the CCD working group where all of a sudden all is well in the bee yard. We probably all agree beekeeping is in trouble and too many hives are being lost. So my point is why toss a bunch of CCD money at the problem if mite management is a source of big pay back and what to do about stressful migratory practices is a Ag policy issue. These seem like real issues with attainable goals that we should solve or we are just folling oursleves in the long haui. Meanwhile waiting for the answer to CCD and thinking we're going to fix the plight of the honeybee if we solve CCD makes no sense to me. ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 15:43:06 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: Paul Cherubini Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit James Fischer wrote: > Further, the STATED GOAL of these advocates of native pollinators > is to COMPETE with beekeepers: > > http://www.xerces.org/Pollinator_Insect_Conservation/pollinator_week_act > ion.html Yes, compete with beekeepers. Example: on 6-15-07, in a message titled "Pollinator Momentum" Bob Pyle - the founder of the Xerces Society - wrote on NorWestLeps@yahoogroups.com: "In recent years, the Xerces Society's pollinator program, headed up by Scott Black and Mace Vaughn, has added great impetus, as have the studies of dr. Claire Kremin on ag lands & pollinators in California. It's about time pollinators got their due! Check out the Xerces Soc. website to read much more. That's great about the stamps and the designated week, if they raise awareness. One thing the honeybee alarum has accomplished, whether overbuzzed or not, has been the mass realization that it's just dumb to put so many eggs in one (pollen) basket. Bob" ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 16:27:57 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > Any wonder why I am getting a little testy? Thank you Jim, for the civics refresher. I often learn much from you! I can understand your frustration at seeing the chance of nabbing the = CCD=20 culprit slipping between our fingers while we wait for an appropriation=20 bill. To get such a bill, we're competing against every other special interest = group in the Country. Why are you singling out the native pollinator = folk? Your frustration appears to have led you into a vituperative runaway = rant=20 unbridled by reason or factuality. Your diatribe appears to be based upon two complaints: 1. That funding for research has been slowed down by the native = pollinator=20 folk, and 2. That they have laden any introduced bills with pork. I believe that in my previous post that I illustrated the total lack of=20 factual support for either premise, yet you continue! First, any agricultural appropriations bill is going to have to wait = until=20 the farm bill passes, so the native pollinator people were not to blame = for=20 that delay. Second, I just can't find any native pollinator "pork" in Boxer's = Pollinator=20 Protection Act. The other acts involving funding have far less chance = of=20 passing. Thirdly, I can't grasp your assertion that CCD is "a single agricultural = problem." Since we don't know what causes CCD, we don't know if it is=20 indeed a single problem or multiple problems, or unrelated- or totally=20 related to native pollinators. As a biologist, I'd tend to guess that=20 anything affecting honeybees on a grand scale will likely be affecting=20 native pollinators, and the more people we have looking at the problem, = the=20 more chance we have at solving it. > the schemes have now become so grand that terms like "habitat" have = been=20 > worked into the title of bills. As a migratory beekeeper, my entire operation is dependent upon = "habitat."=20 I'm moving my bees this week from one habitat to another. Beekeeping=20 success and habitat go hand in hand. Jim, I totally agree with you that I would have liked to have seen the=20 researchers get a timely emergency appropriation to analyze the samples. = I'm frustrated with our government and agriculture system in general,=20 especially the second-class status that the beekeeping industry suffers. = However, that doesn't mean that we should trash potential allies at a = time=20 that we could use all the friends in government that we can get. Scapegoating of the native pollinator folk is not in the overall = interest of=20 the beekeeping industry. I beg you, sir, to decease from your attacks = and=20 unwarranted criticisms, and to utilize your energies in a more positive=20 manner. Can we all throw our support behind Boxer's Pollinator = Protection=20 Act, and move on? Sincerely, Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ****************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 7 Jul 2007 16:56:24 -0700 Reply-To: Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology Sender: BEE-L@listserv.albany.edu From: randy oliver Subject: Re: Pollinator Protection Act of 2007 Introduced into the Senate MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=response Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > James Fischer wrote: >> These advocates of native pollinators can't list even >> a single example crop in their own promotional materials >> beyond experimental attempts. Squashes and sunflowers are native American crops that grew naturally here before the honeybee arrived. Alfalfa is nonnative, but is effectively pollinated by the alfalfa leafcutter bee, and alkali bee. Blueberries in my area are pollinated entirely by bumblebees. Vetches and clovers are rarely visited by honeybees in my area unless there has been a great deal of rain. The above examples are off the top of my head, without even doing any research. Randy Oliver ****************************************************** * Full guidelines for BEE-L posting are at: * * http://www.honeybeeworld.com/bee-l/guidelines.htm * ******************************************************