They will, but they will both be still around. Thankfully I'm likely to see both fairly frequently through one or other local activity.
Only one of them has much expressed sympathy with Eric's views
They will, but they will both be still around. Thankfully I'm likely to see both fairly frequently through one or other local activity.
Only one of them has much expressed sympathy with Eric's views
possibly bees might not be the creature most at risk.
How about hedgehogs etc.
they eat lots of ground dwelling insects etc.
Hi DR
One thing that is emerging re. neonicotinoids is that other species such as bumble bees and some other pollinators react differently from honey bees.
Dave Goulson's study, (Whitehorn et al) found that bumble bees made smaller colonies and produced fewer queens when fed imidacloprid in a semi field type experiment.
A more recent study of his also noted behavioural changes in flies and spiders.
The irritating thing is that the single issue people have latched on to honey bees arguing that crops like oil seed rape are harmful to bees when they are actually of benefit.Here we describe a simple experiment using paired yellow pan traps with or without insecticide to assess whether the commonly used neonicotinoid imidacloprid repels or attracts flying insects. Both Diptera and Coleoptera exhibited marked avoidance of traps containing imidacloprid at a field-realistic dose of 1 µg L−1, with Diptera avoiding concentrations as low as 0.01 µg L−1
In Canada they grow over 7.5 million hectares of canola.
It is the source of the main honey crop in Canada and the commercial beekeepers move tens of thousands of hives to this crop.
Other than some incidents with planter dust, bees in Canada thrive on this and have done for many years.
Arguing that seed treated Oil seed rape is bad for bees is disingenuous.
The anti neonicotinoid campaigners shoot themselves in the foot by overstating their claims of risk to honey bees.
This was indeed an interesting AGM
Now that a lot of members have seen with their own eyes, that nearly the whole SBA executive is against a moratorium to invoke the precautionary principle with regards to neonics, they might become very concerned.
These are some of the hands I saw raised against the motion:
[Here Doris named five member of the Executive who she said had voted in that way. We do not have their permission to publish their names on a public forum]
etc.
Very worrying indeed.
And maybe questions need to be asked regarding due procedure:
Can the rule that voters have to show their current Moir cards be overturned as easily as it was yesterday?
A quick proposal by Phil McAnespie that a count of hands should do might have had serious consequences:
Can we be sure that all hands raised belonged to fully paid up members?
What if the covert industry representatives brought along some 'well meaning friends' to help defeat the motion?
Last edited by gavin; 17-03-2013 at 05:43 PM.
How are notions such as "unacceptably long half-life" (and unacceptable to whom?) and "damage pollinators or the soil dwelling organisms" (damage being possible on a very variable scale) defined?That the Scottish Beekeepers' Association petition the Scottish Government to invoke a moratorium on the use of the pesticides known as neonicotinoids until it is established that these substances do not have an unacceptably long half-life in the soil and that they do not damage pollinators or the soil dwelling organisms on which soil fertility depends
I'm not being facetious.
So paraphrasing post 24, you support democracy when you get your own way but you question it when you don't.
You never give up on the conspiracy.'well meaning friends'
Were they Freemasons or Bayer black op agents!
Doris, that sort of comment is WELL OUT OF ORDER. One of the Exec spoke *in favour* of Eric's motion. Did you not notice that? Who are these mysterious 'covert industry representatives'? Everyone present signed the attendance list. The membership convener is able to check all these names against the subs list. Would you like me to ask him to do so? That should knock that particular conspiracy theory on the head, shouldn't it?
As far as I know all exec members have only their individual votes as SBA members, same as everyone else. There are no extra votes made by or on behalf of the exec.
Last edited by gavin; 17-03-2013 at 05:44 PM.
Yes, [that Exec member] supported the motion and he spoke very well.
But Phil Moss, whose primary interest should be the health of out bees, held a passionate speech against the motion, claiming that OSR had unmissable benefits for beekeepers despite the health concerns.
Yes, I would like the list of attendants checked against the list of fully paid up subscriptions.
Who are these mysterious 'covert industry representatives'? Everyone present signed the attendance list. The membership convener is able to check all these names against the subs list. Would you like me to ask him to do so?
If there is a discrepancy I think we need to repeat the vote.
With regards to connections to industry:
This point has been raised repeatedly, but to no avail.
Several prominent members of the SBA are working or have been connected to jobs in plant research. There are issues of possible influences, but I have yet to see any of them abstain from voting, as required by the rules.
Last edited by gavin; 21-03-2013 at 07:05 PM.
Bookmarks