Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: The Dreadful Politics of Neonics at Home and Abroad

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post
    I am not a member of the bbka myself so they are not my fellow members but I do consider the executive shot itself in the foot with the pesticide sponsorship deal.
    I don't think it was done in bad faith or that it involved backhanders as some like to imply.
    It just did not sit easy with a lot of people - linking pesticide manufacturers with a hobby based around the welfare of a hive full of bees.
    It did, and does, tie the mouths of the recipients.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Jon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Belfast, N. Ireland
    Posts
    5,122
    Blog Entries
    94

    Default

    Don't know if that is fair comment.
    I have met a few guys in the bbka exec and have always found that they speak their mind.

    Who do you think has their mouth 'tied'

  3. #13
    Banned Stromnessbees's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Orkney
    Posts
    456
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jon View Post

    It just did not sit easy with a lot of people - linking pesticide manufacturers with a hobby based around the welfare of a hive full of bees.

    There are some universal principles to the art of lobbying. One of them is

    . "Always lead the opposition", which could also be read as "Always mis-lead the opposition".


    To the billion-dollar industry of pesticide peddling, beekeepers should be a key part of the opposition.

    Would it be surprising if that industry, with teams of analysts, psychologists and strategists at their disposal, would seek and succeed to lead the various beekeeping organizations?

    In German we have an interesting proverb:

    . "The fish always starts to reek at its head"


    Hopefully the AGM on Saturday will prove that this is not the case with our own SBA ...
    Last edited by Stromnessbees; 15-03-2013 at 04:02 AM.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stromnessbees View Post
    There are some universal principles to the art of lobbying. One of them is

    . "Always lead the opposition", which could also be read as "Always mis-lead the opposition".


    To the billion-dollar industry of pesticide peddling, beekeepers should be a key part of the opposition.

    Would it be surprising if that industry, with teams of analysts, psychologists and strategists at their disposal, would seek and succeed to lead the various beekeeping organizations?

    In German we have an interesting proverb:

    . "The fish always starts to reek at its head"


    Hopefully the AGM on Saturday will prove that this is not the case with our own SBA ...
    one must hope that our esteemed leader simply spoke for the best interests of our bees!

  5. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Somerset
    Posts
    1,884
    Blog Entries
    35

    Default

    I think I've come round to backing the ban.

    I don't think it will save bees, in fact I think that colony/bee posioning incidents will increase once neonics are banned.
    I think that colonies will continue to collapse/dwindle/die from "unexplained" causes.
    Bumblebee numbers will continue to decrease.

    But once they're gone, the likes of Doris will have no tub to thump and won't be able to claim pesticides as the cause of everything ailing bees. Nor will many happy to ascribe ppb to "oh pesticides killed them." Have a shield to hide behind.

    The campaign has backed itself into a corner by pinning their objection solely on neonics they've told everyone it's these specific pesticides causing all the "problems" so if, as I believe, nothing fundamentally changes if they're banned, then they've nowhere to turn.

    So I'll take the short term environmental hit of seeing old pesticides come back into use as a trade off for seeing this annoying distraction buried once and for all.

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Exiled Scot, North of Stoke on Trent,
    Posts
    483

    Default

    I am fortunate where I live: virtually no arable land within a 5 mile radius of home or our Association apiary. (200 meters above sea level with clay soil, steep slopes and quite wooded. Mainly cows)

    So - being selfish - a ban is going to have zero impact directly on my bees or others I help look after.

    I wonder what the Law of Unintended Consequences will bring with a ban?

  7. #17
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by madasafish View Post
    I wonder what the Law of Unintended Consequences will bring with a ban?
    1. Less OSR, so less forage for honeybees and bumble bees (not sure by how much, maybe just a little).
    2. Less vigorous/healthy OSR, see above.
    3. Possibility of other chemicals used. Not sure if there will be much consequence of that tbh.
    4. Poorer performance of honeybees and lower populations of wild bees in arable areas as a result (see 1, 2)
    5. Possible improvement in bumble bee performance in areas with the risky neonic crops (sunflowers, maybe spring rape but unlikely winter OSR)
    6. Complacency amongst some beekeepers who think they've fixed a problem when they haven't - bee troubles continue.
    7. Complacency/disinterest amongst the public and politicians on habitat preservation and forage improvement for wild (and honey) bees, yet these will remain the big issues.
    8. At some stage, cynicism when beekeepers or wild bee enthusiasts come back again with some of the important issues once a ban fails to make much difference.
    9. Irritation with beekeepers and bee conservationists from much of the farming community who should be partners in all of this.

    Lose-lose situation.

    Any more to add to the list?

    Oh ... and should this kind of thing extend further through farming and food production, a need for a greater area of land to grow the food we need, and further biodiversity loss (including pollinators) as more land comes under the plough.

    lose-lose-lose situation
    Last edited by gavin; 15-03-2013 at 11:21 AM.

  8. #18
    Administrator gavin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Tayside
    Posts
    4,464
    Blog Entries
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenartisan View Post
    one must hope that our esteemed leader simply spoke for the best interests of our bees!
    You speak with enthusiasm for the Stromness position ZA - which is OK - and about our leader. Will I see you at Perth on Saturday? I'm assuming that you are an SBA member and a beekeeper?

  9. #19

    Default The Dreadful Politics of Neonics at Home and Abroad

    My twitter page has been blitzed during the last few days by people promoting the ban on neonics !
    My instinct tells me such a move can only be to the good!
    However, common sense modifies my Zeal!
    What is the alternative?(we can't all be crofters)
    This group of islands is over populated, cash strapped and due to be further taxed with an input of people from areas where arable land is all they have .
    Anyone living in the countryside should thank god for the 'urban sprawl', because should all the population there demand enough land to be self sufficient ,where would it all end!
    Short of culling people I cannot see our dependence on agrochemicals reducing by an iota!
    Bombarding the social media, fora and the press is beginning to generate Ennui instead of enthusiasm I'm afraid.
    WW


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rosneath Peninsula Helensburgh
    Posts
    691

    Default

    Yes. I can add another item to your list Gavin. Less research funding looking at pesticides as the problem will have been seen to have been fixed with a ban and possible unemployment of scientists working in this area of research.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •