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'
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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