# Why/how I know the Anti Neonics guys are wrong



## gmcharlie

I have listened to many of the arguments off Neonics and Imiclorpids and GMO from all sorts of sources, seems most of them live in NY, Oregon, or CA.

Well I don't I live in the MIDDLE of the area with the HIGHEST combination of the 3 pesticides. But whats really hit me yesterday was how foolish the claims are. And heres why. The town I live in is right at 3 square miles of surface area. 5000 people. Yesterday I did another cutout for the electric company. Its my 5th this year for the city. All of them good strong typical hives. But keep in mind, These cutouts are only in trees that threaten power lines. Yard trees are not included. and I am positively aware of at least 3 other wild hives in the same area. which makes 8 in a 3 square mile area, THAT I KNOW OF. That is better than 2 colonies per square mile of FERAL bees


Just useing that number there are around 120,000 feral hives statewide. not counting the roughly 150k in domestic colonies est. to be in the state.
2 feral colonies per square mile IN TOWN, in the area of the highest neonics in the world...

And so far I have been to Bee meetings in most of southern IL at least once.... so far there has not been a single case of CCD reported. 
Bees are fine and healthy.... and more than 2 feral hives per square mile is FINE..... its all the forage they can handle in this part of the country. 80% monoculture will not support more bees than that.


----------



## MNbees

those are not feral bees. they are swarms from other managed bee hives. and just because they seem fine and healthy right now does not mean much.
I can tell you first hand that the bees most definitely are effected by these neonics just as they have been by all the chems used in the past many years. neonics just stay around longer and the systemic ones are around and available for poisoning for a few months. 
The reason you are not seeing the effects this year is because of the ample amount of rain that has been falling. 
120k feral hives in IL, ha that's a laugh. those hives will parish from mites soon enough.


----------



## rbees

MNbees said:


> 120k feral hives in IL, ha that's a laugh. those hives will parish from mites soon enough.


by your own admission.. not from neonics...


----------



## jeffnmo

MNbees; could you please clarify between feral bees and swarms from other managed hives? how do you tell the difference?


----------



## gmcharlie

He just ask them!


----------



## WLC

The scientific consensus is that pesticide exposure is a contributing factor to Honeybee losses.

So, the OP's post represents a minority viewpoint.

With major Beekeeping organizations and others currently suing the EPA, that minority viewpoint is not in my own best interests.

I would also say that it's not in the best interests of U.S. beekeepers or of the public.

I can't find a good reason for a U.S. beekeeper to make such an opinion known in at this time while representatives of large numbers of beekeepers are locked in a conflict with the EPA over neonicotinoids.

Why speak out against your own best interests? 

WLC.


----------



## D Semple

MNbees said:


> those are not feral bees. they are swarms from other managed bee hives. .


And you know that how? I don't ever hear about folks trucking bees to get to southern Illinois.

I'm south of Kansas City about 20 miles. We have a good number of ferals here also and I caught several swarms originating from the same beetrees 

3 years running. Caught 15 + swarms this year, passed on maybe 10 more to others, did about 8 cutouts and passed on quite a few more of those.

Don


----------



## rbees

WLC said:


> Why speak out against your own best interests?
> 
> WLC.


The entire "scientific community" also knew that...

Blacks were intellectually inferior...

Homosexuality was a mental disorder...

Ice pick lobotomies was good medicine..

and humans are to blame for the ice caps melting.

My point is we have no clue why CCD is prevalent and I'm not about to jump on a bandwagon that will legislate us to death.

Are Neonics to blame...o.k. fine...Show me the evidence.


----------



## WLC

The EPA is saying that neonics are a contributing factor in colony losses.

(I don't think that they had anything to do with the above low points in science.)

Swarms could simply be a sign that thee are a lot of 'swarmy bee' genetics around. 
Or, worse, there are plenty of bees absconding from contaminated hives.

I wouldn't say that it's a sign that 'the coast is clear', or not.


----------



## sqkcrk

jeffnmo said:


> MNbees; could you please clarify between feral bees and swarms from other managed hives? how do you tell the difference?


Fundamentally there is no difference.

WLC, What percentage of the colonies of bees in the US perished from CCD last year?


----------



## jeffnmo

thanks Sqk, that was my point for asking Mnbees. Once bees swarm and set up a hive in the wild they are refered to as feral. Wlc I think we all get your point that pesticides kill bees, however, IMHO there is not enough evidence to say it is neonics alone. There is probably a variety of causes and combinations thereof. MTA was supposed to clean up gasoline emissions and we pushed ahead hard on that and guess what after several years use we found it contaminated ground water. So lets move slow consider all view points and get this right.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC, your just a .... Pawn for legislation..... You wouldn't last 5 minutes out here.......

I think one of the things that is really interesting is I know my numbers are really low. I am only dealing with the hives I KNOW of.. I doubt that I really know about even half....

We also have a guy here who runs about 30 hives, he gets all of his from swarms... and he looses 90% every year (lousey beek) so he gets more swarm calls than I do (thankfully)

So here in the middle of noenics, fungicides, GMO, and imaclorpids. bees are thriving... WLC your scientist are IDIOTS.... real world evidence shows them to be fools. (moderators) the idiot was directed at Researchers in general not WLC)


----------



## WLC

Personal attack.
:no:


----------



## WLC

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/epa-issues-new-pesticide-labels-warn-about-hazards-bees-6C10931490

This is how I know the 'anti-neonic guys' won.

The new bee hazard label.

"This product can kill bees and other insect pollinators."


----------



## jim lyon

This is some of the best data available. 

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_hea...ees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf

Everyone should read and try to fully digest this while asking oneself why it is that some beekeeping operations are able to raise apparently strong healthy hives in the type of agricultural farming areas where others struggle.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

_Gmcharlie_, learn from the master .... make your uncomplimentary comments less specific to an individual, as in:


> What a load of self serving nonsense.
> 
> See WLC's Post #108 http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?287733-Time-Article&p=983977#post983977


:lpf:


----------



## MNbees

Gmcharlie why would you ever defend something like that? i mean are you a beekeeper or not. If you read research or have enough hands on experience you would know that in general the bees aren't as healthy as they could be and many people have proven that neonics contribute to that. 
And yes thank you for stating the obvious that there are a combination of factors.

I keep bees in the heart of farmland just like you are referring to, and yes they are healthy for now.
but this is simple science we are talking about.

systemic corn seeds are planted, then they grow tassels and produce poison pollen. if no rain falls the poison pollen blows around in the wind onto sweet clover, the bees gather some of that pollen and store it away to later feed young. 

Feral bees aren't feral until they successfully swarm and raise a new queen on their own and survive for more than one season. but then who's to say how they are able to mate. i mean if they are only able to mate because of managed drones in the area then to me that's not feral.

"real world evidence shows researchers to be fools" that is the most ridiculous thing i think i have heard on beesource yet!!
let me guess you keep 100 hives and you have it all figured out. try keeping thousands alive, changes the playing field a bit


----------



## TWall

Jim,

Thanks for posting the link to that report. Interesting results. 

It looks like the one common factor between the vast majority of hives is the presence of varroa.

When looking at which pesticides were found it was not surprising that the most common were ones that could be used, legally or illegally for mite control. I was surprised to see how common chlorpyrifos was found. It is not one of the insecticides we hear blamed for bee deaths now days. It is an organophosphate with a pretty good residual life. I liked to use it as a flea dip for my dog when I lived in Florida.

Tom


----------



## beedeetee

MNbees said:


> Gmcharlie why would you ever defend something like that?


The problem is that if you have kept bees for long enough in agricultural areas you remember the crop dusters and 60' boom sprayers. The systemics seem easier on bees, other than the dust issue. You can try to ban all pesticides, but if we have to choose, many of us choose systemics.


----------



## squarepeg

jim lyon said:


> This is some of the best data available.
> 
> http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_hea...ees/downloads/2011_National_Survey_Report.pdf
> 
> Everyone should read and try to fully digest this while asking oneself why it is that some beekeeping operations are able to raise apparently strong healthy hives in the type of agricultural farming areas where others struggle.


many thanks jim for this excellent link. 

i was unaware of the national survey until now. i'm happy to see the money being spent and these questions being examined. looks like this research has an excellent shot at giving us some solid answers. 

but if we get them, we might not have anything to quibble about on beesource.


----------



## jim lyon

TWall said:


> Jim,
> 
> Thanks for posting the link to that report. Interesting results.
> 
> It looks like the one common factor between the vast majority of hives is the presence of varroa.
> 
> When looking at which pesticides were found it was not surprising that the most common were ones that could be used, legally or illegally for mite control. I was surprised to see how common chlorpyrifos was found. It is not one of the insecticides we hear blamed for bee deaths now days. It is an organophosphate with a pretty good residual life. I liked to use it as a flea dip for my dog when I lived in Florida.
> 
> Tom


Samplings from our hives were included in the survey. We were at about the 50th percentile for varroa yet have not had any high bee loss issues. We do no spring treatments aside from requeening and I am going to guess the majority of participants are doing some sort of spring treatment. One concern that I have is the varroa results may be skewed because it's not possible to do sampling on the same date for everyone. Some may be post and some may be Pre treatment, some earlier, some later. As a big picture I think the results tell a lot but there may be wide variations case by case. 
We also had no chemical residues of any kind show up in our pollen samples (beekeeper applied or otherwise). Our virus numbers were all near mid range.


----------



## WLC

No clothiadin detected?

That's odd.

Nevertheless, it's a moot point with the new neonic labels being announced by the EPA.

They're hazardous to bees.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> No clothiadin detected?
> 
> That's odd.
> 
> Nevertheless, it's a moot point with the new neonic labels being announce by the EPA.
> 
> They're hazardous to bees.


I don't understand why there is no data negative or otherwise. My individual results (if I remember correctly) showed n.d. For Clothianidin yet the cumulative results don't list it. I wondered myself and I have no explanation.


----------



## MNbees

if you look closer at the study jim posted you will see the very high amounts of Diflubenzuron and the scary one is Thiacloprid.(neonic)

Another high one that is supposed to be safe is Imidacloprid(systemic neonic)

the table at the bottom should be studied closely and see that the range is much different then the average. one cannot know where the bees were sampled and that is why the data range is important.

I personally have been part of this study for two years and am awaiting this years results.


Imidacloprid is one of the most toxic insecticides to bees. and some samples were over 200 parts per billion. 
so not only is it the worst it is available for months. the old boom sprayers can be avoided, just think of the corn now, it is the boom sprayer, spraying daily for months.


----------



## WLC

In a broader context, including all of the other contributing factors to honeybee losses, we all have our own personal beliefs.

For instance, my own background would predispose me to believe that the spillover of a virus, like DWV, into other native pollinators is a major threat.

But, when it comes to neonics, it's the consensus, and more to the point, the label, that matters.

I wouldn't get too attached to a product that needs fixing or replacing.

There's no benefit.


----------



## sqkcrk

jeffnmo said:


> thanks Sqk, that was my point for asking Mnbees. Once bees swarm and set up a hive in the wild they are refered to as feral.


Jeff,
I haven't finished reading Randy Oliver's article in this month's ABJ titled "Refelections on the Honey Bee Health Summit" yet, but Randy has a better answer than I gave you. As usual there is more too it than my simplemind can think up on its own. On the 4th page, middle column, third paragraph it reads:
"Concurrently, there is also a rebounding population of "wild type" feral and survivor colonies in many areas. These bees tend to be locally adapted, resilient, and have apparently worked out how to deal with the varroa/virus complex."

If you don't have a copy of this magazine get one. If you have a copy, read this article if you don't read anything else this month. I'm going to try to read it twice.

WLC, you too. U and Solomon. You can subscribe to the online version of ABJ.

Sidenote: Interestingly Kim Flottum thinks varroavirus should be one word and Randy Oliver sees varroa/virus as almost insperable in modern beekeeping.


----------



## squarepeg

here's the 2013 project plan from the aphis website:

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/honey_bees/downloads/SurveyProjectPlan.pdf

another good read.

from this publication:

"Current *theories* about the cause(s) of CCD and increased colony mortality generally include Varroa mite parasitism; new or emerging diseases, especially mortality by a new Nosema species (e.g., Nosema ceranae), a newly evolved and more virulent strains of Varroa mite vectored bee viruses; sublethal pesticide exposures (through exposure to pesticides applied for crop pest control or for in-hive insect or mite control); and poor nutrition (due to reduced forage lands caused by increased corn mono-cropping and changes in agricultural practices). These factors, alone or in combination, *are thought *to suppress bees’ immune systems, making them susceptible to a host of pathogens, which in turn causes increased mortality."

(bold emphasis on 'theories' and 'are thought' added)

these experts are stating very clearly that they know what they don't know, and imho they are on the right track to sorting it out.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg,
what part of the 30% loss of 2012 was due to CCD? What part to pesticide poisoning?


----------



## squarepeg

i don't know mark. and i don't think anyone really does at this point.

seems like i have read that the incidence of bona fide ccd has been declining over these past few years, but i can't remember where i read it.


----------



## sqkcrk

What I have heard reported from the Apiary Inspectors of America is that of the 30% dieoff, 5% was due to CCD or CCD related factors. The other 25% was due to starvation, diseases, viruses, and other factors. Most of these things can be addressed through management. CCD gets the attention because it is sexy.

Who is going before Congress asking for moneys to study the other things killing our bees?

Pesticides don't come into play because virtually no one reported any pesticide exposure mortality to the proper authorities. No reports, no problems.


----------



## squarepeg

good info mark, many thanks.


----------



## JStinson

WLC said:


> The scientific consensus is that pesticide exposure is a contributing factor to Honeybee losses.
> 
> So, the OP's post represents a minority viewpoint.
> 
> WLC.


Consensus does not equal science. 

Scientists once agreed that the Earth was flat.

"There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period."

http://eaglerising.com/677/michael-crichton-and-the-fallacy-of-consensus-science/#S4hlsr7RLRFzwZ7e.99


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC, do you use the Scientific Method to arrive at your opinions or positions?


----------



## WLC

The new EPA labeling for the 4 neonicotinoids is policy.

That was based on the scientific consensus that was reached.

Although, I will say that getting sued by organizations representing thousands of beekeepers was a plus.


----------



## marshmasterpat

Rbees - really are you going to go back to the ages when we didn't think we could break the sound barrier and use those thought processes of an ignorant age to point to what science states.

We now have DNA sequenced, are pointing to which alleles contribute to certain diseases, they are grafting tissue to grow heart valves for replacements, and we shouldn't really use those statements as factors to point to what modern science understands. 

I am certain that in another 20 years those in the know will understand much of this. Or maybe 50 years. But we sure shouldn't use the of age of ignorant to enlighten our thought processes today.

But it does seem like there is lots of opinions here that are not backed by peer reviewed literature and yet are accepted as sound science.

This is poor use of science, but follows the lines of what the world press does on regular basis.


----------



## gmcharlie

MNbees said:


> Gmcharlie why would you ever defend something like that? i mean are you a beekeeper or not. If you read research or have enough hands on experience you would know that in general the bees aren't as healthy as they could be and many people have proven that neonics contribute to that.
> And yes thank you for stating the obvious that there are a combination of factors.
> 
> I keep bees in the heart of farmland just like you are referring to, and yes they are healthy for now.
> but this is simple science we are talking about.
> 
> systemic corn seeds are planted, then they grow tassels and produce poison pollen. if no rain falls the poison pollen blows around in the wind onto sweet clover, the bees gather some of that pollen and store it away to later feed young.
> 
> Feral bees aren't feral until they successfully swarm and raise a new queen on their own and survive for more than one season. but then who's to say how they are able to mate. i mean if they are only able to mate because of managed drones in the area then to me that's not feral.
> 
> "real world evidence shows researchers to be fools" that is the most ridiculous thing i think i have heard on beesource yet!!
> let me guess you keep 100 hives and you have it all figured out. try keeping thousands alive, changes the playing field a bit


Because these are feral hives.... and my bees now are healthyier and more productive than the bees I had in the 80's...... 
The hives here are succesfuly swarming and reproducing at a very normal and healthy rate.

Where do you come to the conclusion that your bees are not healthy???
Most of the cutouts I do are at least 2 years old... several have been around as long as anyone can remember..


----------



## WLC

I'm going to give you my own analysis of what the new neonic labels really mean.

The American farmer has been left holding the bag for the EPA and the pesticide industry.

So, now when beekeepers sue, you're liable for applicator error.

The EPA and the industry are exonerated by the new labels.

Why some of you have taken the position that you have is inexplicable.

You need to change your position.


----------



## squarepeg

"there you go again"

(ronald reagan to jimmy carter during a presidential campaign debate)

give us one example of anyone on this forum taking a position against labeling protection for neonics.

the only position that the majority here have taken is that you are long on hype and short on facts, and that you have unsuccessfully tried to impugn the reputation of very well respected individuals whose contributions to beekeeping are unparalleled. 

i liked you better wlc when your posts were helpful to the rest of us trying to understand genetics. your politics leaves a lot to be desired.

please, take your own advice and change your position.


----------



## WLC

By saying that there's no evidence for neonics causing honeybee losses.

But, I've made that abundantly clear.

It's not in the best interest of a beekeeper. It's not in the best interest of a beekeeper/farmer.

If farmers oppose the new labels, they'll be going against public opinion.

It's almost a 'forced play' for farmesr to join beekeepers who are suing the EPA.


----------



## squarepeg

ok, i'll play.

short of planting dust kills, what evidence is there for neonics causing honeybee losses?

and let's keep it to the u.s. and canada.


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC your apparently to ____ (you fill in any word you like) to be able to understand a complicated thing like keeping your bees out if the seed bags. seems to me your the guy we label Irons "caution hot" for........... keep bees in a normaly maner, use pesticides like there intended... and SHAZAM we get good crops, and healthy productive bees......

Soo lets get back to brass tacks, how much honey have your hives averaged this year???


----------



## WLC

gmcharlie; squarepeg:

So you're asking me about my honey production, and then I'm being asked if there's any evidence that neonics are harming Honeybee colonies.

I don't extract, and plenty.

I understand your own anecdotal evidence, and I've certainly provided the neonic evidence before.

Of course, now we have the EPA saying that neonics can kill bees and pollinators.

Deflection isn't really a helpful tactic when I'm trying to explain that there's really no good reason to discredit the EPA labels or the scientific consensus.

I don't understand why anyone would bother to say, 'why/how I know the anti-neonics guys are wrong.'

If it's somehow in your own best interest, please explain. I don't get it.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> By saying that there's no evidence for neonics causing honeybee losses.






squarepeg said:


> ok, i'll play.
> 
> short of planting dust kills, what evidence is there for neonics causing honeybee losses?
> 
> and let's keep it to the u.s. and canada.






WLC said:


> Of course, now we have the EPA saying that neonics can kill bees and pollinators.



of course neonics *can* kill bees and pollinators, they are insecticides. nothing new here.

still waiting for your 'evidence'.


----------



## squarepeg

never mind.

"no wise man has the power to reason away what a fool believes"

doobie brothers


----------



## WLC

Personal attack.
:no:


----------



## squarepeg

apropos, no?


----------



## squarepeg

evidence?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

SP, I feel your pain! 

This resembles some of the _discussions _I have had with Ace! :lookout: Sometimes it just comes down to making fun of the other side's mis-statements, because you can't get them to engage in a _sensible _discussion.

:ws:


----------



## squarepeg

i appreciate the empathy graham. i'm still kicking myself for engaging, again. i don't think anyone here is taking that crap seriously.

having said that, and for the record, i'm keeping an open mind with respect to pesticides. i was happy to learn about the national bee survey today. understanding colony loss is a big deal, i just don't have much patience for 'the sky is falling' mentality.


----------



## squarepeg

anybody catch this?

http://perc.org/articles/myth-bee-pocalypse-stossel


----------



## JStinson

WLC said:


> It's not in the best interest of a beekeeper. It's not in the best interest of a beekeeper/farmer.
> 
> If farmers oppose the new labels, they'll be going against public opinion.
> 
> It's almost a 'forced play' for farmesr to join beekeepers who are suing the EPA.


Whether WLC is right or wrong on neonics is irrelevant. The justification he offers against neonics consists of "Neonics are bad because public opinion is against them and their is a scientific consensus." Where's the _actual_ science?


----------



## frazzledfozzle

we have neonics in New Zealand but we don't have CCD I think the same applies to Australia as well.


----------



## WLC

I'm trying to tell you that you're holding fringe beliefs.

The EPA has recognized the problem, and your own beekeeping organizations are suing the EPA over neonics.

This kind of a thread is needlessly provocative, isn't a mainstream belief, there's plenty of evidence disproving it's assertions, and it belongs in tailgater rather than out here with polite society.

It is insensitive and out of touch.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> i appreciate the empathy graham. i'm still kicking myself for engaging, again. i don't think anyone here is taking that crap seriously.
> 
> having said that, and for the record, i'm keeping an open mind with respect to pesticides. i was happy to learn about the national bee survey today. understanding colony loss is a big deal, i just don't have much patience for 'the sky is falling' mentality.


I believe you would get more out of reading Randy Oliver's second article in ABJ than what you are getting from engaging in this roundy round w/ WLC. It's chock full of intelligent perspective and openmindedness. Stop wasting your time.


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> anybody catch this?
> 
> http://perc.org/articles/myth-bee-pocalypse-stossel


Actually there is some argument about worldwide colony count decline. Read Peter Borst's ABJ article.

No, I don't own ABJ Stock.

Do you recall the Whole Foods illustration of what a world w/out bees would make the produce isle at the grocery store look like? All of those vacant bins. I believe they were wrong. They should have found bins full of underdeveloped fruits. That's what we would have, not no lemons, but fewer good looking fruits and vegetables.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

You're an ESHPA officer, and so is PLB.

The ESHPA is a sponsor of the NPDF. It's logo is on the NPDF webpage.

Since all of those major beekeeping organizations are suing the EPA to ban neonics, I don't think that you can afford to appear 'open minded' on a closed issue.

This is one of those problems that Bret Adee needs to address.

He has to get control of this 'fringe' problem. That includes dealing with members of other organizations, ABJ, etc..

I hope that it doesn't come down to calling for a boycott of sponsors by the membership of the major U.S. beekeeping organizations.
But, that's a very real weapon that the organizations suing the EPA have for suppressing the fringe.

He's got to start making phone calls.

WLC.


----------



## gmcharlie

What I think is really crazy/ludicrious in your positions WLC is your "I will take Jim Doan at his word" and the total inability to take any one else opinion or experiences. Jim Doan got hit with something.. My bet is intentionally.... His neighbors bees were fine...
Her I am with dozens of others representing 100s of beeks in the thickest part of the chems you rail against... and were fools...

Your hipcrosy knows know bounds... I am betting your on someones payroll


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Since all of those major beekeeping organizations are suing the EPA to ban neonics...


:lpf:


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> But, that's a very real weapon that the organizations suing the EPA have for suppressing the fringe.
> 
> He's got to start making phone calls.
> 
> WLC.


"suppressing the fringe." You are heading down a very ugly path, not that I believe it's remotely possible. If we don't like what some have to say, we figure out ways to "suppress them."


----------



## WLC

This is the new label for the following neonicotinoids: imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin and thiamethoxam.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ecosystem/pollinator/bee-label-info-graphic.pdf

"This product can kill bees and other insect pollinators".

That's pretty clear.

If you don't agree with the label, I don't see that there's a rational argument to be made.

Suppression of dissenters, or the fringe, refers to political aspect of this.

This kind of a thread is more political than anything else. Especially since last week.

I've lost track of how many different groups are suing the EPA over neonics, but they're going to start dealing with persistent sources of misinformation. 

As for open dissenters, if they're part of a sponsoring organization, that's easily fixed.

This is all political in my view.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> I've lost track of how many different groups are suing the EPA over neonics, but they're going to start dealing with persistent sources of misinformation.
> 
> This is all political in my view.


that explains it. please note that there are no major beekeeping organizations suing the epa to get neonics banned, but rather a handful of beekeepers joining a number of 'environmental groups'.

that this is political for you is understating the obvious.


----------



## WLC

misinformation.
:no:


----------



## squarepeg

don't believe so, but if you can prove me wrong, please do.


----------



## rbees

Neonics are insecticides..of course they are harmful to insects...duh! The issue I have is there is no science that shows neonics are responsible for CCD yet so many are on the wagon to ban them. o.k. fine...Then we go back to the likes of penncap-M. 

Fact is we could ban all pesticide use and still have CCD, why? cuz we don't know the root cause.


----------



## WLC

But, I do know the root cause: AGO2 knockdown.

It has nothing to do with neonics. However, the scientific consensus is that they're a contributing factor.


----------



## rbees

WLC said:


> But, I do know the root cause: AGO 2 knockdown.


And you know that how? and if that is indeed the cause how are neonics responsible?


----------



## JStinson

WLC said:


> "This product can kill bees and other insect pollinators".
> 
> That's pretty clear.


Nobody here would argue that an insecticide is capable of killing an insect.




WLC said:


> Suppression of dissenters, or the fringe, refers to political aspect of this.
> 
> I've lost track of how many different groups are suing the EPA over neonics, but they're going to start dealing with persistent sources of misinformation.
> 
> As for open dissenters, if they're part of a sponsoring organization, that's easily fixed.
> 
> This is all political in my view.


This is some of the scariest stuff I've ever seen. Don't agree with my position? I hope your business fails and you're on the street in a box. 

Suppress the dissenters. Sounds eerily authoritarian. 

:ws:


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> sqkcrk:
> 
> You're an ESHPA officer, and so is PLB.
> 
> The ESHPA is a sponsor of the NPDF. It's logo is on the NPDF webpage.
> 
> WLC.


Actually you are wrong about that. Peter Loring Borst has not been an officer (or even a Board Member) of ESHPA since last November. If you recall I worte "He was absent." when you brought up the vote of approval of a donation to the NPDF? He resigned before that meeting. I don't know if he got to Montreal for Apimondia, but he had plans to go.

At our most recent Board Mtng we wondered amongst ourselves what the NPDF had done w/ the donation we made to them. We haven't gotten any kind of report from them as far as I recall. I guess we now know something about what they have been up to, in an indirect manner.

I don't appreciate you telling me what I can't do w/ my own mind. You are acting just like folks who told me I could not be against the War in Iraq and hold our Soldiers in high regard. Find some other tactic to convince me of your point of view. (what I was going to say would have gotten this Deleted and me a warning)


----------



## WLC

Personal attack.
:no:

"Suppress the dissenters. Sounds eerily authoritarian."

That's 'party' politics. 

"And you know that how?" 

An obscure molecular signature found in an EST, that I followed to a virus sequence from the original U.S. CCD site, that matched AGO2 in the Honeybee. Thus, knockdown.


"and if that is indeed the cause how are neonics responsible?"

It's what the published Scientific consensus IS that matters. That's why they're included.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> As for open dissenters, if they're part of a sponsoring organization, that's easily fixed.
> 
> This is all political in my view.


So why don't you come up to Syracuse in November and run for office in thge Empire State Honey Producers Association. My seat will be vacant Friday afternoon at the General Meeting. Your free to take it if anyone will vote for you. Enough anyones.

But no, you won't do that. That would mean giving up a position you hold to valuable, your anonimity.


----------



## rbees

WLC said:


> An obscure molecular signature found in an EST, that I followed to a virus sequence from the original U.S. CCD site, that matched AGO2 in the Honeybee. Thus, knockdown.


O.k. Fine. Every documented case of CCD also has found to have Nosema ceranae, and by applying your logic that is a root cause.

See where this is going? If not...forming a conclusion based on bad science.




> It's what the published Scientific consensus IS that matters. That's why they're included.


and again published Science knew that Blacks were intellectually inferior...

Homosexuality was a mental disorder..

Global Warming is man made...

or...

or...

or...


----------



## rbees

Meanwhile...hive continue to thrive in the middle of neonic application.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> But, I do know the root cause: AGO2 knockdown.
> 
> It has nothing to do with neonics. However, the scientific consensus is that they're a contributing factor.


And of course you can prove that, right? So why don't you tell the World that you have found the answer and become famous?


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

Whatever you say man. 

rbees:

All that I can tell you is that the new neonic label graphic said, "The science says that there are many causes for a decline in pollinator health, including pesticide exposure. EPA's new label will help protect pollinators."

That's the usual scientific consensus statement.

I don't think that the other stuff is really relevant, but I do get your point.

Don't get me started about some of the recent nastiness that occurred in Honeybee research. It was savage.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

This has been a very instructive thread. 

Someone asks you a tough question .... one that you don't want to answer? :scratch:

Just reply with a couple of _key phrases_ that are irrelevant to the question, but _sound _good. Be sure not to quote the original question, so you can't really be pinned down as to what you really meant!

Throw in a few smileys :lookout:and you too can be an expert!

:digging:


----------



## WLC

I don't think that we can really argue the whole "Do Not!", "Do Too!" bit when it comes to neonics and Honeybees anymore.

The EPA dropped the big one.

I'm not going to argue a label, neither should you.

My own opinion is that it's all politics from now on.

There's no way to win, unless you're actually in it.

There's no there, there, as far as I can tell.

PS- I never feel obligated to answer all questions. Some of them don't have an answer, or require language I can't use on Beesource.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> sqkcrk:
> 
> Whatever you say man.
> 
> Don't get me started about some of the recent nastiness that occurred in Honeybee research. It was savage.


You calling me a liar?

That last line looks like a teaser.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Thanks for providing a timely _illustration _to vividly demonstrate my point! :lpf:












(oops, Mark got in the posting queue first. I wasn't referring to Mark)


----------



## WLC

Radarsidetrack:

Do you think that the new EPA labels make future discussions about neonics and bee health moot?

WLC.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I'm learning from your fine example .... _at the master's knee,_ so to speak.


----------



## WLC

I thought that I asked a relevant question?

I can see that you learn quickly.

Honestly, do you have an opinion on the EPA label and the neonic dialogue?

How has it been changed? Why do you think they did it?

WLC.


----------



## JStinson

WLC said:


> "Suppress the dissenters. Sounds eerily authoritarian."
> 
> That's 'party' politics.


One sided discourse is the direct opposite of party politics. 

And if you don't believe me, your opinion is in the minority. Or, fringe, should we say.


----------



## WLC

O.K. :

But what's your opinion about the new neonic labels?

Same question as Radarsidetrack.

As for party politics, I do understand.

Where do you think the new label came from? A sudden change of heart?


----------



## JStinson

WLC said:


> O.K. :
> 
> But what's your opinion about the new neonic labels?


Honestly, I don't know enough to make an educated opinion about neo-nics. I just get jittery when "scientific consensus" and "public opinion" are used as counter arguments on any issue. It makes for _poorly_ thought out legislation with unintended consequences out the ying-yang.


----------



## WLC

In terms of unintended consequences, do you mean that farmers are now holding the bag for applicator error?

I don't think that was unintended.

Am I the only one who understands this?

Why am I even here?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Why am I even here?


Because you enjoy being here. Why else?


----------



## WLC

Joy isn't the word I would use.

Masochistic is more appropriate.

But, it's like the label didn't happen here?

Maybe I'm in a county where there is no EPA, or something?

It's gotta be trauma, or shock, or amnesia maybe. In a group, yet.


----------



## Barry

It appears to be a case where the boy cried "wolf" too many times. The audience is gone.


----------



## WLC

You're calling me 'boy' on a thread entitled, "Why/how I know the neonic guys are wrong"?

What was it? More swarms?

Meanwhile, there is no discussion about the new labels.

This isn't discourse on a forum.

It's an excuse.


----------



## beedeetee

WLC, 

I'm not sure how many insecticide labels that you have read, but at least 90% of the ones that I've read over the years have honey bee warnings. I just don't see the big impact (or big win) that this change is going to have. A lot of us have lost bees to the spraying of insecticides and I'm pretty sure that there was a warning about honey bees on every label.


----------



## rbees

WLC said:


> rbees:
> 
> 
> 
> All that I can tell you is that the new neonic label graphic said, "The science says that there are many causes for a decline in pollinator health, including pesticide exposure. EPA's new label will help protect pollinators."
> 
> 
> 
> I bet dollars to doughnuts all the carbamate and organophosphate pesticides pretty much have the same EPA warning to toxicity to bees as neo-nics. Just because the EPA issued a warning in no way indicated neo-nics are the root cause of CCD.
> 
> A question for you...a simple yes or no will do.
> 
> Say neo-nics were never used. Do you believe that CCD would be an issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the usual scientific consensus statement.
> 
> I don't think that the other stuff is really relevant, but I do get your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just so there's no misunderstanding...what do you think my point is? I'm not trying to be snarky here
Click to expand...


----------



## WLC

Yes.
Science is flawed.

I did see in the announcements that the new label was for specific products.

I don't know if they will be applied to other pesticides as well.


----------



## WLC

beedeetee:

I'm saying that the new labels make a debate about whether or not neonics harm bees moot.

The labels aren't some kind of bee shield.

But, the NPDF and others are dealing with the pesticide/bee loss issue.


----------



## MNbees

Barry said:


> It appears to be a case where the boy cried "wolf" too many times. The audience is gone.


maybe you can explain that mindless remark... 


This thread is proof that not all beekeepers are smart. Jeez what a bummer.

I think you all are being very naive. 

Yes there had been some labels with bee warnings, maybe words so small no one could see them, and no one followed them.

Now maybe with awareness and large labels and possible punishment for not following the instructions may change something.
LOOK AGAIN AT THE STUDY Jim Lyon posted.
These chems might not kill the hive out right and you might think oh no what did i do wrong. they make for weaker hives in general.

30 years ago would all you guys have been saying they were wrong about DDT??? i mean get serious its not like a small hippy group making false claims this is huge and very real.

remember this is not about just one little beekeeper, its about millions of bee hives and billions of people.


----------



## WLC

""suppressing the fringe." You are heading down a very ugly path, not that I believe it's remotely possible. If we don't like what some have to say, we figure out ways to "suppress them." "

I'd like to know where's his moral authority in making that remark.

He gave that up when he failed to protect my rights as a member against personal attacks, and my rights as a human being when he led a cadre bent on violating my privacy.

The fact is, I know what it feels like to be suppressed. But, I was talking about the legal/civil kind.


----------



## sqkcrk

MNbees said:


> 30 years ago would all you guys have been saying they were wrong about DDT???


MN, I think what this Thread shows is that many beekeepers are just as concerned about the alternative, maybe more so. Many of us are not jumping on a band wagon. We don't want to see bees killed and people inconvenienced, but what is the alternative? What we had before? Something newer? Nothing at all?

We don't live in a vacuum, so what do you see as a solution to systemics versus other types of pesticides which modern agriculture depends on to provide the food we all eat?


----------



## WLC

MNbees:

It is big. I'm also trying to convince others that they need to act in their own best interests. Especially at this time.


----------



## sqkcrk

Use different words. No one can hear you.


----------



## Mbeck

MNbees said:


> 30 years ago would all you guys have been saying they were wrong about DDT??? .


I wish someone would have.

http://rachelwaswrong.org/


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

I was speaking generally.

"Many of us are not jumping on a band wagon."

So you voted against supporting the NPDF?

My mistake. I thought that you were a party to the lawsuit.


----------



## sqkcrk

What I heard about at our meeting sounded to me like something worth supporting moneterealy. I don't mind spending money on things which look like a good thing. That doesn't mean I jump in whole hog and become a fanatic. If I didn't support things I don't totally understand or know about as well as others do I probably wouldn't support much of anything.

I have been a supporter of that group in CA that advocates planting bee friendly habitats. I donated money, they sent me stickers. Nice idea. I can't do much more than that myself, other than not planting crops on my farm.


----------



## MNbees

sqkcrk said:


> MN, I think what this Thread shows is that many beekeepers are just as concerned about the alternative, maybe more so. Many of us are not jumping on a band wagon. We don't want to see bees killed and people inconvenienced, but what is the alternative? What we had before? Something newer? Nothing at all?
> 
> We don't live in a vacuum, so what do you see as a solution to systemics versus other types of pesticides which modern agriculture depends on to provide the food we all eat?


well thats a bit extreme to say. I mean if i have to write it out i will.
15 years ago....Despite the few mass bee kills due to over spray and unlucky placement and timing was where we should have stayed.
its like you all have been snowed by the chem companies. i mean its business to them, they had money and time to try and figure out how to make more money. In a perfect world they would have considered the bees when they developed neonics. 

this is not a perfect world " more profit, less money to make money......
who do you think did the testing to see if these things were safe???????
the makers of the product did the tests and reported back to the EPA on the results. 
do you really think they did it complete and thorough job testing this stuff?
THE ANSWER IS NO... WE ARE THE TEST !!! our back breaking labor is the test. our weak colonies are the test. our sub par honey crops are the test.

The folks on here who have been doing this much longer than i have are the ones that need to step up and say hey besides mites and foul brood this is the worst thing to come to beekeeping. 
and so many of them are its just they dont have a screen name on beesource.


----------



## sqkcrk

Tell me how many colonies died from use of pesticides? Do you have hard numbers? Notice I didn't say neonics or CCD, but pesticides. Of which systemics like the neonics are a part. How many?


----------



## MNbees

sqkcrk said:


> Tell me how many colonies died from use of pesticides? Do you have hard numbers? Notice I didn't say neonics or CCD, but pesticides. Of which systemics like the neonics are a part. How many?


Thats a trick question because you know i cant answer it. If i had to estimate i would say approximately a **** ton....


----------



## sqkcrk

Okay, let me make it easier. Do you know of any colonies that have died from pesticide exposure, personally?


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> What I heard about at our meeting sounded to me like something worth supporting moneterealy. I don't mind spending money on things which look like a good thing. That doesn't mean I jump in whole hog and become a fanatic. If I didn't support things I don't totally understand or know about as well as others do I probably wouldn't support much of anything.


Well, the suit is against sulfloxaflor, a new neonic.

http://earthjustice.org/news/press/...ues-epa-for-approval-of-bee-killing-pesticide

"The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee, Jeff Anderson and Thomas R. Smith have filed an appeal against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, requesting changes needed in the Sulfoxaflor label, the Biological Economic Assessment Division (BEAD) assessment of the value of pollinators and their established habits, and the EPA’s Risk Assessment Process. These changes would acknowledge pollinator’s critical role in the U.S. food supply, and ensure that decisions regarding new pesticides comply with applicable laws." 



> MN, I think what this Thread shows is that many beekeepers are just as concerned about the alternative, maybe more so. Many of us are not jumping on a band wagon. We don't want to see bees killed and people inconvenienced, but what is the alternative? What we had before? Something newer? Nothing at all?
> We don't live in a vacuum, so what do you see as a solution to systemics versus other types of pesticides which modern agriculture depends on to provide the food we all eat?"


So, they're not just trying to block a neonic, they're actually trying the change the process itself by which pesticides are approved so that they are safer for pollinators, etc. .

That should give you some relief from the fear that eliminating a pesticide would only leave us with worse choices.

I do agree that the process needs to be reformed.


----------



## MNbees

Yea yours


----------



## sqkcrk

MNbees said:


> Yea yours


So, you are exactly the wrong person to be advocating anything pro or con concerning pesticides and their use, because you don't base your position on facts.

You don't know anything about whether any colonies nationwide were killed last year by pesticide exposure and you don't know any first hand examples either. But you assume my colonies have died from pesticide use.

Do you know what it means to assume? What happens when one assumes?


----------



## WLC

Fellas, there are plenty of reports in the media for beekills.

There's no need for 'debate'.


----------



## gmcharlie

Yea the media are well know for facts and beekeepers...

I said it before And I say it again. The hypocrisy of some is so alarming..... Guys like WLC " I believe Jim Doan" but not the hundreds of guys in the midwest who actually deal with this stuff....

I have no clue how much honey my hives make, but yours must be sick.....

I do not understand some people..... rather believe foolish news stories, than facts from the ground...... your the kind of Guy who works at the DMV and tells people standing in front of them, "the computer says your dead, so I can't help you".......


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Fellas, there are plenty of reports in the media for beekills.
> 
> There's no need for 'debate'.


Site a cpl for me, will ya?

Why isn't "Pesticide Exposure" on the Apiary Inspectors of America's list of the causes of the 30% dieback? If Pesticide Kills aren't reported and investigated they don't exist. I will concede that that is highly unlikely, that none occured, but where are the reported cases?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Fellas, there are plenty of reports in the media for beekills.
> 
> There's no need for 'debate'.


Maybe not, but there is need for actual knowledge of the degree and intensity of the problem. How bad is it?


----------



## WLC

You mean, like Steve Ellis?


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC while you would like us to believe you have all the answers and data and the rest of us are wrong you cannot even keep your insecticides straight. Sulfloxaflor is not a neonic. It is a new chemical family and is the only member of that family. It does act in a similar way to neonics, but it is not a neonic. Extrapolating one to another is wrong.
Dave


----------



## WLC

I got that information from the Earthjustice webpage.

It's being called a sulfoxamine.

However, after reviewing its structural formula, and comparing it to nicotine and imidacloprid, it looks like a nicotine derivative.

Putting lipstick on a pig!

How clever.

Its a neonic Dave.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> You mean, like Steve Ellis?


What about Steve Ellis?


----------



## squarepeg

wlc: "I'm pro-regulation, anti-pollution..."

in the european union, environmental activist groups not even involved with beekeeping adopted the honey bee as their poster child. by sensationalizing bee colony losses and blaming it on neonics the environmentalists waged a public misinformation campaign that resulted in the masses becoming anti-neonic. despite scientists and experts testifying that they had no solid evidence implicating neonics for the colony losses, the politicians ended up caving in to public sentiment, and they set a two year ban on neonics in place citing the 'precautionary principle' as the justification.

wlc is on record as being an environmentalist, and he is especially concerned with native pollinators. he would like to see a ban on pesticides. i believe that he hopes associating bee colony losses with pesticides will accomplish the same thing here.

it's no wonder that you disparage the positions of the leaders in the beekeeping community who aren't on you're environmental bandwagon wlc. the problem with trying promote this nonsense on beesource and the reason it's not working is because the folks here know better.

you would get more bang for your buck on msnbc.


----------



## WLC

squrepeg:

"The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee..."

They're all suing the EPA to block the neonic solfoxaflor, and change the process to make pesticides safer for pollinators.

I don't think that you've made a valid point.

Beware of false prophets.


----------



## Dave Burrup

WLC said:


> I got that information from the Earthjustice webpage.
> 
> It's being called a sulfoxamine.
> 
> However, after reviewing its structural formula, and comparing it to nicotine and imidacloprid, it looks like a nicotine derivative.
> 
> Putting lipstick on a pig!
> 
> How clever.
> 
> Its a neonic Dave.


So we can add a lack of knowledge of chemistry to your list.
Dave


----------



## JStinson

So far, the argument against neonics here are these: 

Scientific consensus says they are bad. 

Public opinion says they are bad.

There is a lawsuit. 

There is a warning label.

I haven't seen _any_ legitimate points here against neonics. Seriously, WLC, people like me that are not well educated about neonics are _the most important_ ones you need to be convincing. If this thread were a political campaign, I would vote for the OP.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> squrepeg:
> 
> "The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation, and beekeepers Bret Adee..."
> 
> They're all suing the EPA to block the neonic solfoxaflor, and change the process to make pesticides safer for pollinators.


don't think so, but please prove me wrong if you can.

perhaps you mean the *appeal* (not a lawsuit) that they filed for labeling protection, not blocking.

which they got by the way, and rightly so.


----------



## WLC

JS:
Don't forget neonic contaminated talc.

Take a look at who's involved, and then tell me it's frivolous.

Do they appear to be frivolous people to you?

No, of course not.

I'm not debating a label. Read it, then write a letter if you wish.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> You're calling me 'boy' on a thread entitled, "Why/how I know the neonic guys are wrong"?


I said "It appears to be a case where the boy cried "wolf" too many times."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_alarm

"The concept of this can be traced at least as far back as Aesop's story of The Boy Who Cried Wolf,"


----------



## WLC

Barry:

Thanks for the wiki.

WLC.


----------



## gmcharlie

JStinson said:


> So far, the argument against neonics here are these:
> 
> Scientific consensus says they are bad.
> 
> Public opinion says they are bad.
> 
> There is a lawsuit.
> 
> There is a warning label.
> 
> I haven't seen _any_ legitimate points here against neonics. Seriously, WLC, people like me that are not well educated about neonics are _the most important_ ones you need to be convincing. If this thread were a political campaign, I would vote for the OP.



Just keep in mind that Public opinion, is not what SHOULD matter Beekeepers opinions should.....


----------



## WLC

GMCharlie:

I'm not going to disagree with that. Public opinion can be some pretty vicious stuff.

But, this has gone political.

You've convinced me.


----------



## MNbees

actually i am the correct person because i spare nothing on my bees and try to keep on top of everything, and still lost nearly 2 thousand colonies last fall due to neonics and no rain to wash them away.

Also what about steve ellis? hes is my fathers friend for many many years. i suppose he is wrong to???


----------



## WLC

Sorry MNbees.

I'm in.

WLC.


----------



## sqkcrk

How would I know? Unless you tell me about him. What can you tell me about Steve Ellis? WLC didn't answer when I asked.

I don't know why you are being so obtuse in your answers. Especially when I asked you about pesticide exposure losses. You didn't say anything about your own losses. 

How were your bees exposed to neonics? What did you do about it? Did you get your Dept of Ag envolved?


----------



## WLC

Keep creating opponents out of thin air.

However, I do know where most of this is coming from.


----------



## sqkcrk

Who is Steve Ellis and why did you bring him up?

What opponents?

Are you a reverse Troll?


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

I tried to warn you about this kind of thread.

WLC.


----------



## sqkcrk

Yeah,
I should take this Thread off of my Subscribed Threads List.

Knock yer self out.


----------



## Barry

sqkcrk said:


> Who is Steve Ellis and why did you bring him up?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Ellis_(comics)

"Steve Ellis’ work has been featured on CD"

Obviously it's a misprint and should be "CCD".


----------



## WLC

Barry:

I don't know why he's doing this. Something's not right.

WLC.


----------



## greatgabber

The only way you could know that is by measuring the neonic residue in your hives, comparing them with other hives with CCD, and standardizing all the other variables. Everything else is just hearsay. But keep it up, Monsanto.


----------



## Birdman

WLC said:


> Why am I even here?


You are free to leave.


----------



## honeydrunkapiaries

Wanna see how this plays out in Government in Canada? http://www.parl.gc.ca/sencommitteebusiness/CommitteeMeetingSchedule.aspx?parl=41&ses=2&Language=E&comm_id=2&pastMeetings=1 Not very optimistically. Proof is theres, its everywhere, but sadly its down to dollars and politics?


----------



## greatgabber

I wouldnt worry too much about whether there is an immediate outcome to this issue. More important, it is obvious that the mfrs of neonics are in a life and death struggle to prevent any association of CCD to the neonics. When the neonics first were implicated in causing CCD, these mfrs decided to go on the absolute defensive in attempting to counter any connection shown to their product and CCD. That could wind up to be very costly and bankrupting should absolute proof of the connection to CCD and their product be established. Bigger fish than they have been brought down and you can bet their legal department is in a damage control mode as we speak. But no matter, the sharks of the class action lawsuit genera are already circling this whale, they smell its blood. Yes I am saying Monsanto, Bayer and Syngenta could disappear if the facts support that honeybees are experiencing CCD because of their product. When a manufacturer deliberately obfuscates the truth about a product it sells to maintain or grow profit and the truth that was hidden actually caused the endusers serious financially loss and injury, lawsuits not only provide recovery but treble damages to punish the deceiver. Right now neonic companies are too far down the road to ever turn back. They are where the cigarette companies were in the 1960s, absolutely denying the connection of cig smoke to cancer while more and more evidence rolled in. As far as my belief, I think the jury is still out whether CCD is really caused by neonics but evidence is starting to suggest that. I dont understand individuals on websites such as this one, making absolute statements that claim no relationship between neonics and CCD whatsoever. How can they know with such certainty? Dont they understand that when this unfolds, they too will be challenged for what they said if neonics are in fact causing CCD? Anyone making such statements, are of substance, and would achieve personal enrichment directly resulting from such a statement could be held accountable and liable for deliberately false and misleading statements. Do you really think you are anonymous on the internet?


----------



## camero7

My question is how many beekeepers are actually experiencing CCD "as defined" right now? Seems like it has kind of run it's course.


----------



## Oldtimer

greatgabber said:


> evidence is starting to suggest that.


Please present it then.

Oh, please no links to experiments where bees are overdosed in a petri dish in a laboratory, or to web pages put up by weirdoes and crackheads.


----------



## greatgabber

I dont know where you live or what the losses are there, but where I live they are still very high. I have lost over 40% of my hives this past year. Now I know that many attempts have been made to "redefine" these losses and their causes. But that is a rose by any other color. The truth, if it is hidden, will come out eventually. All you have to do is look at the charges for almond pollinator services and they are at record highs. That is because there is a limited number of healthy bees available, ie supply vs demand simply.


----------



## jim lyon

CCD? When is the last time anyone has documented a case of CCD? It's just sooooooo 2006, the new lingo is "hive losses", its much more all encompassing, you know, and you dont have to document and prove all those wierd and mysterious symptoms. Kind of like global warming is being replaced by climate change. Its just much easier that way.


----------



## Oldtimer

greatgabber said:


> I dont know where you live or what the losses are there, but where I live they are still very high. I have lost over 40% of my hives this past year. Now I know that many attempts have been made to "redefine" these losses and their causes. But that is a rose by any other color. The truth, if it is hidden, will come out eventually. All you have to do is look at the charges for almond pollinator services and they are at record highs. That is because there is a limited number of healthy bees available, ie supply vs demand simply.


So you are one of these guys that says that every hive that dies is caused by neonics.

You said there is evidence, but clearly you have none.


----------



## greatgabber

I cant believe you asked that. Lets start with the European countries. Do you believe the studies that were used to limit the neonics in the legislation they recently enacted? You think that was done by "weirdoes and crackheads"? You can easily find them if you wish. Believing that the Eurozone is barking up the wrong tree begs the question, why? They have the most to lose by doing this. German and Swiss companies produce and own the patent rights to the neonics and they would be shooting themselves in the foot to be the first to introduce such bans.


----------



## Oldtimer

Do you have a link to evidence? Seems not. If so, link it.

Talk is cheap, and saying it's neonics cos you lost 40% of your hives is bad science, very, very bad science. Could it have been a cold winter? Could you have underfed them? How can anyone take you seriously?


----------



## WLC

Health Canada has made the finding that thousands of honeybee colonies were lost to neonic pesticide poisoning.

Where's your evidence?


----------



## jim lyon

greatgabber said:


> All you have to do is look at the charges for almond pollinator services and they are at record highs. That is because there is a limited number of healthy bees available, ie supply vs demand simply.


You are making an economic argument not a scientific one. Do you really think the fairly recent phenomena of expecting there to be a million and a half large, booming hives sitting in California in mid winter is proof that neonics are killing bees? You call that good science? Do you think that kind of hive demand was there even 10 years ago? Have you considered the possibility that it might be an unrealistic expectation brought by the increased world demands for almonds or do you think just because the almond growers plant the trees that there will automatically be bees to pollinate them. And in case you missed it, there was a record almond crop last year.


----------



## WLC

Almond pollination is generally considered to be a sustainability issue.

However, with this year's drought in play, it's too early to tell what the fall out will be.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Almond pollination is generally considered to be a sustainability issue.
> 
> However, with this year's drought in play, it's too early to tell what the fall out will be.


Agreed. In the case of almonds, water supplies will most likely be depleted before bee supplies will. Hey, I'm not saying there aren't some concerns about neonic use just that it's far from being the dominant determinant of US bee health and that folks who want to use bee health as ammunition in their fight against big ag might be better advised to take a more balanced approach. Just scan through recent postings here in the forum for current examples of bad losses in non agricultural areas.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Health Canada has made the finding that thousands of honeybee colonies were lost to neonic pesticide poisoning.


Link it.

Regardless, thousands of honeybee colonies have been lost to many kinds of poisoning. Not just neonics. So the point is moot, we all know neonics are insecticides and as such kill insects. I have had hives poisoned. Never by neonics it was by the "good" old fashioned poisons.

Which brings up the question that no neonic basher can answer, the elephant in the room that always is conveniently ignored, what's the alternative?


----------



## beemandan

greatgabber said:


> I have lost over 40% of my hives this past year.


Are you stating that your losses are neonic related? I am not arguing....just would like to hear how you make this determination.


----------



## WLC

No, I've already posted links to the PMRA, etc., been insulted, and we know what they said about neonics already.

As for the alternatives, that's up to the PMRA and the provinces as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well that certainly underlines the intellectual depth of the neonics cause CCD faction.


----------



## greatgabber

ok oldtimer here it goes. Read these studies over and lets discuss the scientific merits of them. Don't summarily dismiss them as all BS, otherwise I will know that you really aren't looking at facts, you are just opinionated without science. Look forward to your detailed critique. 

see http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0029268#pone-0029268-t006


http://www.boerenlandvogels.nl/sites/default/files/Chauzat et al 2006_0.pdf

and re bumble bees see:

https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=whitehorn-2012.pdf&site=411


----------



## greatgabber

you didnt answer my question. So you are one of these guys that believe that the Europeans are idiots and don't know what their doing when they began their ban of certain neonics? Answer my question dont ramble about how you know neonics are fine. You make your bias so obvious when you do that.


----------



## greatgabber

I didnt state that my losses were tied to neonics or not, you appeared to. Why are you so defensive? Do you have a dog in this fight? I know that bee losses by beekeepers have continued through the changing definitions of bee loss. Yesterday we called it CCD, now we call it "absconding"? Oh yeah, varroa mites are now the rage in definitions for bee losses. But underlying conditions of poor health caused by sublethal dosage of neonics could cause susceptibility to the mites. You can argue till the cows come home. The proof will be in the pudding not in our conversations on this board. As countries and regions eliminate these pesticides, the data will come in, positive or negative, whether neonics are seriously impairing the health of the honey bee. You can huff and puff your beliefs but they will mean little in the face of practical evidence. They may be just as you say, safe as can be, or not. Other places in the world will be the proving grounds, not what you or I say.


----------



## greatgabber

What does Agricultural areas have to do with it?


----------



## Oldtimer

greatgabber said:


> you didnt answer my question. So you are one of these guys that believe that the Europeans are idiots and don't know what their doing when they began their ban of certain neonics? Answer my question dont ramble about how you know neonics are fine. You make your bias so obvious when you do that.


Idiots might be a little strong. Let's say they have been persuaded by pressure groups rather than science.



greatgabber said:


> Why are you so defensive? Do you have a dog in this fight?


Yes I'm a secret agent for Bayer and Monsanto. 

Who are you? the huffing and puffing is reminiscent of at least one banned person who only talked about neonics and sounded just like you.


----------



## greatgabber

Nobody has absolute proof of anything yet regarding the neonics. But the fact is that supply and demand have dictated higher pollination cost. Do you know what production estimates for almonds are this year? While demand has gone up, California production of almonds will be less for a number of factors. That should have dropped the cost for pollination but it didn't. Therefore, your whole premise does not hold water, it leaks! :scratch:


----------



## greatgabber

ooooooo, banned person, threats now. Is that how this board works? touchy touchy


----------



## Oldtimer

Yup, sound just the same. Do you have any bees?



greatgabber said:


> Nobody has absolute proof of anything yet regarding the neonics.


Got it in one. 

Although to be honest I would have to disagree with your statement, much has been proved. Neonics are an insecticide and can kill bees. Just, huffing and puffing about it on chat sites is rather mindless when no better alternative is offered.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

There are more than enough alternatives. In Europa there are many organic farms and they all see pesticides only as a very last resort. And if they treat, they treat with an alternative pesticide that does the least harm. So what's the problem about alternatives? Can't see, why neonics are a have to have/use?


----------



## Oldtimer

The organic model does not work when applied to the kind of huge monoculture required for economic farming as practised in the US. Organic is niche only, if it was economic mainstream everybody would already be doing it.

The use of poison to control pests is just a fact of life, harsh reality.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

Monoculture is the underlying cause, yes. And this is why monoculture will stop to be mainstream in the future. It is not sustainable. (Uh oh, he said sustainable...) Thus it'll stop sooner or later. Especially when phosphorus and other nutrients are depleted and can't be supplemented from outside anymore.

The use of poison is not a fact of life per se, but a consequence of monoculture. And even in monoculture it is the last resort. I don't know how pesticides are applied elsewhere, but here pesticides are used more preventively. Just like neonics as a seed dressing: the pesticide is applied before any pests have been identified. Blind usage without actually assessing the real need for it. 

This is unnecessary. As are neonics. There are enough alternative pesticides. That can be used as a last resort of a decent integrated pest management. Not preventive.


----------



## beemandan

greatgabber said:


> I didnt state that my losses were tied to neonics or not, you appeared to. Why are you so defensive?


I'm defensive? Hardly. You stated that you had 40% losses in the middle of a neonic debate and without any other explanation it appeared that's what you were suggesting. I only asked for clarification. I don't have an immediate dog in the fight. The agriculture around my hives is predominantly livestock. It doesn't mean I'm not interested.



greatgabber said:


> Oh yeah, varroa mites are now the rage in definitions for bee losses. But underlying conditions of poor health caused by sublethal dosage of neonics could cause susceptibility to the mites.


Varroa mites have been the rage for decades. They demonstrated their destructive power long before neonics entered the scene. I suspect that its more likely that varroa make bees more susceptible to neonics.....and pretty much every other pressure. Which, since you raised the subject makes me curious. What sort of mite testing did you employ on your hives and what were the results?


----------



## sqkcrk

BernhardHeuvel said:


> This is unnecessary. As are neonics. There are enough alternative pesticides. That can be used as a last resort of a decent integrated pest management. Not preventive.


And what are those alternative pesticides? Are you familiar w/ reports that show that neonics are less harmful than many of those alternative pesticides?


----------



## WLC

Are you aware that neonics are water-soluble, systemic pesticides that are considered to be environmental contaminants by environmental scientists?

That's the real issue in my opinion.

Honeybees just happen to be indicator species that are 'indicating' that neonics are a problem.


----------



## Oldtimer

Are you aware that most pesticides are formulated to be water soluble, and that most are considered environmental contaminants? What's new?

Just to help you understand WLC, to be effective, most pesticides are fat soluble, kind of. They dissolve in the kind of fats or other chemicals in the insect. In their raw form some are not water soluble. But they have to be mixed with water to be applied so they come formulated in a carrier that makes them dissolve in water. This is not new it's old science.

In your opinion that's the real issue? Hardly enough to ban neonics and return to the old poisons.

Honeybees do not just happen to be indicator species that are 'indicating' that neonics are a problem. We see people like Tim Ives keeping bees successfully in areas of heavy neonics use, so in Tims case his bees are indicating neonics are not a problem if you want to follow that logic.


----------



## BernhardHeuvel

sqkcrk said:


> And what are those alternative pesticides?


Any other will do, that is not systemic (thus contaminating pollen and nectar and guttation water), not as persistent in the soil and not used preventive.



sqkcrk said:


> Are you familiar w/ reports that show that neonics are less harmful than many of those alternative pesticides?


Are you familiar with the number of how many thousand times neonics are more poisonous than DDT?

I can live with sprayed pesticides. Because I talk to the farmer, he informes me, I move off the bees and I am alright. The bees, too. It all about communication. This isn't possible with systemic pesticides, because nobody knows when and where they pop up and kill my bees. Most farmers I talked to in my area - 14 farmers in total - didn't even know they were using neonic coated canola seeds. Not a single one. They simply walk into the store, buy some seed and are done with it. A bit simple minded, but hey, they do not really care. One asked the store owner: is it bee safe? He got the answer: Yes. It is active only during the first eight weeks. 

My problem as a beekeeper is, that I do not know when and where it strikes. It also accumulates in the water systems and from there it goes anywhere. 

Talking to farmers doesn't help me avoiding that sort of pesticide contamination. 

Bottom line, I rather accept a sprayed on non-systemic pesticide that doesn't persist in the soil. Even if it is brutal. If it is brutal, I move my bees off the site and are done with it. With a systemic pesticide that persists you cannot possibly avoid it.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> Are you aware that neonics are water-soluble, systemic pesticides that are considered to be environmental contaminants by environmental scientists?
> 
> That's the real issue in my opinion.


I think it is the argument the environmentalist will use to get them banned, reason will not prevail. Some judge with a law degree will be deciding the issue. 

Don


----------



## Oldtimer

You are branding all neonics the same. Some have long residual activity, and some don't. Some are much shorter than many traditional poisons. 

While I sympathise with what you are saying, not all beekeepers are in a position to move their bees every time somebody sprays. The spray kills I've seen, I don't think we ever got told prior, and even after, we mostly never found out who did it.

Personally I would support the phasing out of neonics with very long residual activity, provided they would not be replaced with something worse. proving GreatGabber has judged me all wrong plus some of what he says about me is untrue.


----------



## deknow

...more than that, WLC citing 'environmental scientists' as proclaiming neonics as 'environmental contaminants'. I wonder what they think ariel sprayed organophosphates are? Environmental vitamins?


----------



## Michael Bush

>...reason will not prevail. Some judge with a law degree will be deciding the issue. 

You are correct and he/she will make that decision with no concern for logic, reason or practicality, but only based on the law the way it is currently written...

I still don't even get what everyone is arguing about. I like bees, but to me they are not even an important part of the issue. We have come up with a pesticide that permeated the entire plant. That means it is in the part we eat as well as the parts generally eaten by the pests. This pesticide binds with acetyl choline receptors. Acetyl choline receptors are how we humans think and react. These pesticides not only bind with the acetyl choline receptors but they never let go of them, so the receptor is essentially dead after that. Unreactive. Forget bees. What is the short term effect on humans? The long term effect on humans? What I would expect is a sudden increase in children with brain disorders and a sudden increase in Alzheimer’s disease. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we are already seeing, it’s just that no one has bothered to consider the connection to something as obvious as neonics. 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...er-chemicals-linked-problems-like-autism.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...er-chemicals-linked-problems-like-autism.html
http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-e...-brains-epidemic-in-young-20140215-32swe.html

Alzheimer’s epidemic:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...-dementia-epidemic-numbers-to-triple/1881151/
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/811460
http://www.policymic.com/articles/7...emic-our-generation-has-to-battle-alzheimer-s
http://www.uctv.tv/alzheimers/

This is perhaps the largest scale and potentially dangerous experiment ever perpetrated on the human population of the world. In 40 years we will know the outcome, but the outcome will have affected every person on the planet…


----------



## Oldtimer

Isn't there a joke about that? the guy goes to his Dr & says Dr Dr, I have a terrible problem I've been a long time user of neonicitinoids and now I can't remember anything.
The Dr says Hmm, how long have you had this problem?
The guy, after a pause, says Problem? ---What problem? 


In truth though, my Grandad got Alzheimer's when he was 95. I think he illustrated that years ago he would not have got Alzheimer's, cos people did not live that long.


----------



## jonathan

Michael Bush said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...er-chemicals-linked-problems-like-autism.html
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...er-chemicals-linked-problems-like-autism.html


Michael.
the Daily Mail is as unreliable and disreputable paper as you can find in the UK.
Famous for its Xenophobia amongst other things

Read this article for an example of pure nonsense about bees.

bees wiped out by a strain of Spanish flu. LOL.


----------



## Michael Bush

I don't have time to read the articles right now, I just googled: epidemic brain disorders and those were the top three articles. Sorry if they were not as reputable as you like. There were 6 1/2 MILLION hits on the topic and even if there were none, what will there be in 40 years of our receptors getting tied up with neonics?

How about the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/19/w...ning-line-between-behavior-that-s-vexing.html


----------



## squarepeg

regarding the irreversible binding to the nicotinic receptors in the brain, it seems like i remember reading that in mammalian cells the binding of the neonics is readily reversible. do i have that wrong? it would be unlikely that those chemicals would have obtained approval with such an undesirable off target result.


----------



## Michael Bush

>in mammalian cells the binding of the neonics is readily reversible

I had not heard that. I looked for studies, and there appear to be quite a few. Some not so promising lke this one on the toxicity in mice:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0041008X01992920

A favorable one (as far as the insects getting the short end of the stick):

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.45.120403.095930

One about human children:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032432#pone-0032432-g007

It's conclusion:
"This study is the first to show that ACE, IMI, and nicotine exert similar excitatory effects on mammalian nAChRs at concentrations greater than 1 µM. Therefore, the neonicotinoids may adversely affect human health, especially the developing brain."


----------



## squarepeg

thanks michael.

i could only read the abstract of the first link, and there is not mention of reversibility. looks like they studied pain inhibition and toxicity.

this from the second link is similar to what i remember seeing before:

"The low affinity of neonicotinoids for vertebrate relative to insect nicotinic receptors is a major factor in their favorable toxicological profile."

if this is the case, it causes me to wonder what is the basis for the concerns about irreversibility you presented in your post #173.

what i get from the third study is that neonics act like nitotine, (from what you quoted and as expected), and insofar as nicotine is not healthy for a developing nervous system the authors postulate that the neonics are likely also not healthy, (makes sense). they end the paper with:

" Further investigation is required to clarify the mechanisms of action of these substances and to determine safe concentrations for their application to agricultural crops as pesticides."

as far as i can tell there has been and continues to be serious investigation into this, as there should be. has anyone determined what levels if any of these compounds are showing up in the human food supply?


----------



## Oldtimer

It's common in many insecticides. Pyrethrum, widely regarded as natural and relatively safe, in fact is irreversibly absorbed into human nerve cells, of which the brain is built.

As an aside to that, no actual harm as a result has ever been demonstrated, but me, I don't use it in the house.

That's one of the beauties of some neonictiniods being hundreds of times stronger against insects than some of the old insecticides. It means that hundreds times less is used but still be effective, much better in many ways.


----------



## greatgabber

Hmmm. The Germans, (known for their scientific leanings and actually the home of Bayer), the French, others in the European Union have been influenced by "political pressure". What about the UK? Its a country in decline from a once great power, and a kettle pot of political dissent and disagreement yet they have gone on record supporting the continued use of neonics. The UK has gone on record as opposing the Eurozone's partial and temporary ban on neonics. Your statement makes no sense. :scratch:

Now you seem to be a man (or woman) of science, what is your take on the fact that the EPA in the USA has never granted more than a conditional approval and that the neonics are currently under re-review by the State of California Department of Pesticide Regulation?


----------



## greatgabber

I am not judging you wrong, I dont even know whether neonics are truly as unsafe as some claim. You have claimed that neonics are unconditionally safer compared to other past pesticides. At least I am honest and can say that I don't know. I wish the incontrovertible testing on these pesticides would be performed to show they are as safe as you claim them to be.


----------



## WLC

Why should a fella living in midtown Manhattan have to worry about neonics?

I've found out that when they use imidacloprid to treat trees for beetles in Central Park, the dose is effective for 4 years!

Where do you think my bees get most of their early pollen from?

I've also found out that horticultural plants are sold containing neonics. 

So, now I get to worry about all of those large horticultural displays as well as terrace gardens.

There are plenty of urban beekeepers who think that they don't have to worry about the effects that neonics are having on their bees, but that's not the case. It's everywhere.


----------



## Dominic

Most treated seeds, in horticulture, are covered with fungicides. I was not aware that any had neonic coatings. Care to share some plants that tend to have it, or suppliers that tend to do this?


----------



## WLC

Dominic, not seeds but potted/trayed plants, like the ones people purchase at the garden centers of some large chain stores. There were some petitions making the rounds to get the stores to stop selling neonic treated plants. I don't know the outcome offhand though.

So, imagine that you buy the usual spring annuals for your garden, but there's nothing indicating that they were treated with neonics.

Here's a related link:

http://www.care2.com/greenliving/lowes-home-depot-sell-bee-friendly-plants-that-could-kill-bees.html


----------



## greatgabber

Rubbish. The assumption that neonics are 100 times more powerful and therefore used 100X less is false. There are no controls on the household applications (nor even the ag applications other than seed coatings) and it has been shown in residential usage the actual applications of neonics in those environments can be 100X the amounts necessary. Contracted landscapers routinely blanket plants, lawns etc with certain neonic products to save reapplication labor costs. They are applied all over the place without limitations. You still havent answered my question regarding your thoughts on the fact that the neonics have never been thoroughly reviewed by the EPA. And yes I do keep bees.


----------



## TWall

And you have proof of this over-application by 100X?

Neonics typically are only applied once a growing season since they are systemic and once taken up are not washed off.

If you have real knowledge of commercial applicators violating product labels it would only take one phone call to your local regulatory agency to get that stopped. To suggest that that there are no controls is false. When I worked in extension and taught pesticide applicator training courses I found all perticipants were eager to apply pesticicdes correctly.

Typically, homeowners tend to be the ones who over apply pesticides. Labels on products are very specific in how they are to be applied. Not everyone reads of follows those labels. But, I wouldn't assume that everyone over-applies products either.

If you are seeing violations of laws you should report it!

Tom


----------



## Oldtimer

Didn't know that was your field TWall. 

I too am a qualified applicator and have to do reading, do courses, pass exams and spend money annually to keep that updated. Which is why I tend to get dragged into these types of threads cos I just get sick of reading the appalling ignorance on display, and I do mean appalling. I am not especially "pro neonics" or much of the other labels people like to pin, just pro science and common sense, over emotionalism.

GreatGabber re your hundred x's question, look at the formulations, not how much water is sprayed.

Just some background on me cos most won't know this I had to give up commercial beekeeping for some years due to a back injury and during that time did several things including running a pest control business. My back gradually healed itself so now I am back in bees at a semi retirement level, and pleased to be mostly out of pest control although still have a few contracts & keep up my certification.


----------



## greatgabber

I can tell you probably havent used your bees for commercial pollination where growers apply pesticides. In California they can't even get some growers not to apply pesticides when bees are in an orchard for pollination, or even notify beeks when they are going to apply. All of which I am sure there are laws against but not enforced. Growers are the customers of beeks and beeks do not wish to upset the apple cart of their relationship. That is how they dont get reported. I am sure there are laws against this but who is out there to enforce them?

Here's another example of an unenforced law. Beekeepers are required in California to be licensed by their County Agricultural Department. Before the disappearance of bees occurred in the past 10 or so years, they would come out and inspect hives for foulbrood in the spring when hives were first opened. Zoom ahead to today when losses are catastrophic, and they dont do any of that anymore. They have thrown up their hands and gone away, when they should use their position to study the actual causes of bee loss, now more than ever, whether do to the varoa mite or neonics etc. But the fact is they don't want to know.

Regarding household landscapers and professionals that do this, I have talked to some and few pay much attention to labels. Some don't even read the labels beyond what is necessary for their own safety. Do I have a study that proves that? No, but I do have common sense and anecdotal experience. The one thing I can agree with you is that homeowners do over apply their pesticides



TWall said:


> And you have proof of this over-application by 100X?
> 
> Neonics typically are only applied once a growing season since they are systemic and once taken up are not washed off.
> 
> If you have real knowledge of commercial applicators violating product labels it would only take one phone call to your local regulatory agency to get that stopped. To suggest that that there are no controls is false. When I worked in extension and taught pesticide applicator training courses I found all perticipants were eager to apply pesticicdes correctly.
> 
> Typically, homeowners tend to be the ones who over apply pesticides. Labels on products are very specific in how they are to be applied. Not everyone reads of follows those labels. But, I wouldn't assume that everyone over-applies products either.
> 
> If you are seeing violations of laws you should report it!
> 
> Tom


----------



## Oldtimer

None of which is any reason to ban neonics and switch to something else.


----------



## greatgabber

You know, Oldtimer, you would be a lot more honest to the people on this blog if you would please include a short blurb regarding your current status as a qualified applicator of pesticides, right next to the bottom line on all your messages "44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly)". 

You give the appearance that you are a well experienced beekeeper but no indication where your current financial motives come from now, presumably applying and selling pesticides. You ridiculed me when I sincerely asked if you had a dog in this fight when I asked you why you were so certain that neonics were not a problem to the bees. Now its obvious and the truth has come out by your own admission. You, not I, should be banned from this blog. Remember when you suggested that I might be banned from this blog because I appeared to be so against neonics, alluding that I might be a former blogger on here that was banned for that reason? I think dishonesty on this board, not your personal opinion, is a justifiable reason for banning some one. 




Oldtimer said:


> Didn't know that was your field TWall.
> 
> I too am a qualified applicator and have to do reading, do courses, pass exams and spend money annually to keep that updated. Which is why I tend to get dragged into these types of threads cos I just get sick of reading the appalling ignorance on display, and I do mean appalling. I am not especially "pro neonics" or much of the other labels people like to pin, just pro science and common sense, over emotionalism.
> 
> GreatGabber re your hundred x's question, look at the formulations, not how much water is sprayed.
> 
> Just some background on me cos most won't know this I had to give up commercial beekeeping for some years due to a back injury and during that time did several things including running a pest control business. My back gradually healed itself so now I am back in bees at a semi retirement level, and pleased to be mostly out of pest control although still have a few contracts & keep up my certification.


----------



## sqkcrk

This is a blog?


----------



## clyderoad

greatgabber: what kind of a scientist are you?


----------



## sqkcrk

Just what I wondered clyde.

Let's see, Oldtimer w/ 41 years keeping bees and greatgabber w/ 6 years? Hmmm, who should I follow?


----------



## WLC

Here's just one reason to consider banning neonics:

"Neonicotinoid clothianidin adversely affects insect immunity and promotes replication of a viral pathogen in honey bees"

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/46/18466.full

OT: if you do have an applicator's license, either you're a farmer or an exterminator.

greatgabber: Thanks for that post about OT.


----------



## greatgabber

No the neonics do not have to be a yes no question. The laws of competitive survival, in agriculture as in any other industry will be the final arbiter to the question "are neonics safe for bees when properly used?"

If the studies that are underway in Eurozone and other places where neonics have been limited or banned, AND they show a healthier bee population as a result, those countries and regions of the world that have done such will have an eventual competitive economic advantage over those who ignor their results. Unfortunately, many bees and beekeepers will be lost in the interim if such is the case. I have asked this question already, but how can those who standby the use of neonics do it in a way so adamantly when the EPA has never given the clear green light that these pesticides are in fact safe for bees? Is it just because there is nothing better? Is it because it is such and effective and lethal insecticide to the target species with no thought to what may be happening to non-targeted species? 






BernhardHeuvel said:


> There are more than enough alternatives. In Europa there are many organic farms and they all see pesticides only as a very last resort. And if they treat, they treat with an alternative pesticide that does the least harm. So what's the problem about alternatives? Can't see, why neonics are a have to have/use?


----------



## Ian

greatgabber said:


> You know, Oldtimer, you would be a lot more honest to the people on this blog if you would please include a short blurb regarding your current status as a qualified applicator of pesticides,...
> You give the appearance that you are a well experienced beekeeper but no indication where your current financial motives come from now, presumably applying and selling pesticides.
> ... You, not I, should be banned from this blog.


You want Oldtimer banned from this _blog_ because you think he sells pesticides?? How bout following through with that statement and also ban activists from this _blog_ ... hmm, do we know of any activists on this _blog_


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> OT: if you do have an applicator's license, either you're a farmer or an exterminator.


Isn't that what I just said? To repeat, for some years I ran a pest control business. 

Your genius at stating the obvious astounds me.


----------



## Oldtimer

greatgabber said:


> You give the appearance that you are a well experienced beekeeper but no indication where your current financial motives come from now, *presumably* applying and selling pesticides.


Emphasis* presumably*. You have over speculated.



greatgabber said:


> You ridiculed me when I sincerely asked if you had a dog in this fight when I asked you why *you were so certain that neonics were not a problem to the bees*.


Your question was ridicule worthy because I have never said I am certain neonicitiniods are not a problem to bees. Your question was designed to imply a falsehood and received the answer it was worthy of.



greatgabber said:


> Now its obvious and the truth has come out by your own admission. You, not I, should be banned from this blog.


Just lucky you not a moderator LOL. . My guess is that with your obvious propensity towards use of any powers if you had them, you never will be a moderator, either. 
Re "the truth", I have mentioned my involvement in extermination before, no hidden secrets there.


----------



## greatgabber

well then, oldtimer, put that fact on your little line that says "44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly)." so we all know where you are coming from. Dont hide it, dont be ashamed. 



Oldtimer said:


> Isn't that what I just said? To repeat, for some years I ran a pest control business.
> 
> Your genius at stating the obvious astounds me.


----------



## greatgabber

Ian said:


> You want Oldtimer banned from this _blog_ because you think he sells pesticides?? How bout following through with that statement and also ban activists from this _blog_ ... hmm, do we know of any activists on this _blog_


I dont think you read my statement. In a previous discussion, I asked Oldtimer whether he had more of a stake in the neonic issue beyond just being a beekeeper and his response was to mock me and state sarcastically that he worked for Bayer and Monsanto. As it turns out, I guess he really does in a way. But his response did not appear to be sincerely stating that. Now I have to ask you the same question, do you have any pesticide sales or application relationship or are you just entering the fray for fun? And why do you consider me an activist? I never stated that I know for certain that neonics are unsafe for bees. What are your thoughts on the fact that the EPA has only given temporary, conditional approval to neonicotinoids and has never acted on a final review and approval process?


----------



## Oldtimer

This is getting more crazy by the post.


----------



## deknow

In many (if not most) states in the US, a pesticide applicators license is required to do bee removals legally.


----------



## Michael Palmer

Is that right? For a cut out and not for killing them with pesticide? How are the laws written?


----------



## deknow

My recollection is that in Massachusetts it is an insurance issue (hard or impossible to get coverage that applies to removals without pesticide license...probably would be covered under contractors policy if you were a general contractor).

In FL, a former state association president was cited for not having a pesticide license when using a spray bottle of water (not soapy water...just water). One guy in FL was able to arrange a removal business without the pesticide end of things, but it was years of work/struggle.

Deknow


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

greatgabber said:


> well then, oldtimer, put that fact on your little line that says "44 years, been commercial, outfits up to 4000 hives, now 120 hives and 200 nucs as a hobby, selling bees. T (mostly)." so we all know where you are coming from. Dont hide it, dont be ashamed.


_Greatgabber_, your profile page quotes you as claiming to be a "scientist", yet you haven't responded to earlier requests to explain what scientific discipline that refers to. :scratch:


> Dont hide it, dont be ashamed.


Perhaps you would like to peruse this earlier Neonicotinoid thread as a _research tool_ ... 

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...&p=933699&highlight=monsanto+check#post933699
As you can see, there are more Monsanto _secret agents_ at Beesource than just Oldtimer!


----------



## Ian

greatgabber said:


> Now I have to ask you the same question, do you have any pesticide sales or application relationship or are you just entering the fray for fun? And why do you consider me an activist?


ha ha ha ha, greatgabber, welcome to beesource. Hope you have more to contribute than just that...

oh, and I was referring to the other activist posting in this _blog_


----------



## clyderoad

greatgabber said:


> And why do you consider me an activist? I never stated that I know for certain that neonics are unsafe for bees. What are your thoughts on the fact that the EPA has only given temporary, conditional approval to neonicotinoids and has never acted on a final review and approval process?


I have seen this Modus operandi before, many times. Though most times it has taken more than 21 posts to be uncovered. These 21 posts have been the worst attempt thus far to mislead, misguide and redirect a conversation that I have had the displeasure to witness. It's all been done before, by multiple characters.
What a shame and a waste of time.


----------



## squarepeg

Ian said:


> ha ha ha ha, greatgabber, welcome to beesource. Hope you have more to contribute than just that...


i was wondering the same thing ian. 21 posts and there's really nothing other than neonics are killing the bees.


----------



## WLC

deknow said:


> In many (if not most) states in the US, a pesticide applicators license is required to do bee removals legally.


I completely forgot about that.

OT: Do you need an applicator's license in NZ to do 'legal' bee removals?

Ian: If you're referring to me, I don't think that I've ever done 'neonic' activism. I've done social activism, but not environmental. However, I do advocate for environmental issues.

I do know some environmental activists, including one who used to block whalers as part of Greenpeace. Haven't seen him around in a long time though.


----------



## Barry

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...-Neonics-guys-are-wrong&p=1062973#post1062973

Just now got approved, OT.


----------



## WLC

There's definitely something twisted about requiring beekeepers to hold a pesticide applicator's license, and I think that it's an undercurrent in many of these 'neonic' threads that's goes largely unrecognized.

One can draw parallels between the 'beekeeper/pesticide applicator' and the 'fireman/arsonist'.

So, how many 'fireman/arsonists' do we have responding to this and other similar threads?


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> So, how many 'fireman/arsonists' do we have responding to this and other similar threads?


I *light a smoker* every time I work bees. :lpf:  :lookout:



:gh:
... its the responsible thing to do ...


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> I *light a smoker* every time I work bees. :lpf:  :lookout:
> :gh: ... its the responsible thing to do ...


The parallels just keep getting more and more interesting. 

Rader:

Do you have a pesticide applicator's license as well?


----------



## Tim Ives

greatgabber said:


> Do you have a dog in this fight?


Nope, just a bunch of LIVE treatment free and sugar free bees, surrounded by neonics??? 

The PLoS link, all the hives/ Queen are exclusively raised on HFCS. 

Hint: Junk foods equals junk bees...... May your pantry be full of gumdrops and sugarplums..

Tim Ives


----------



## Ian

wlc said:


> Ian: If you're referring to me,


bingo!!!


----------



## Oldtimer

Barry said:


> Just now got approved, OT.


I'm assumimg from the links in your reference you are referring to the damage done to bees by insecticidal dust from seed planting? If so I don't think anyone is disputing that.



WLC said:


> OT: Do you need an applicator's license in NZ to do 'legal' bee removals?


If so I have not heard about it, but to be comprehensively insured for such work (as I am), an applicators license would certainly make it easier. I am classed as an "approved handler", to hold that I have to do a lot more than just have a knowledge of the chemicals & their uses and restrictions, I have to demonstrate other safety stuff such as always have a fire extinguisher in the vehicle, always have current first aid certification, etc. All that means liability insurance for work such as cutouts is available to me and negate most of the legal reasons a claim may be refused.

GreatGabber, just don't make any sense of your "be ashamed" comment. I am not ashamed, nor have any secrets. The opposite in fact. The education I have received, and on-going training to stay current, makes me a professional in the field, a safe operator, and has other advantages such as the ability to get better and cheaper liability insurance even for my beekeeping operation.

Am saddened, but not surprised, by your attempt to demonise me, it is typical of activist behaviour, anyone with links to the industry is the devil. What sometimes gets overlooked is that without any pest control industry we would be living in quite a different world.

My own interest in pest control is now pretty small, I have some ongoing work due to past friendships made etc, financially, little more than beer money. I do not get paid for expressing my opinion on a beekeeping chat site LOL, too much conspiracy theory GreatGabber, common among activists. Unlike yourself, I'm primarily here on Beesource to talk about bees.


----------



## WLC

Ian:

It makes a lot more sense for someone interested in environmental issues, like myself, to keep Honeybees than it does for a licensed exterminator.

In one case, like my own, it's normal. However, in the other case, local law enforcement should open a case file on them. They fit the profile of a 'psychopath' (beekeeper/exterminator; fireman/arsonist).


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> I'm assumimg from the links in your reference you are referring to the damage done to bees by insecticidal dust from seed planting? If so I don't think anyone is disputing that.


That would be GreatGabber's references, not mine.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Ian:
> 
> They fit the profile of a 'psychopath' (beekeeper/exterminator; fireman/arsonist).


How bout farmers, who beekeep?

Its easy to sit over there behind a computer screen behind a tag name nattering about pesticide use, and not actually have to deal with these problems first hand. 
When you are a farmer like me, who needs to be able to control insect populations within my thousands of acres of growing crops and protect the health of my hives at the same time, I actually have to find solutions to these problems and act on them to protect the interests of both enterprises. Successfully,

talk is cheap, actions move mountains


----------



## WLC

Ian:

It makes sense for a farmer to have an applicator's license and 'farm' Honeybees.

However, it's a bit creepy to see that the same usual suspects that frequent this topic, on thread after thread, appear to be more 'exterminator' than 'beekeeper'.

That's not normal on a beekeeping forum.

There's a big difference between running a business and following standard practices, which is 'amoral' (it's just business), and those of us concerned with the environmental impacts of those practices, without a 'vested' financial interest. We have every right to rally against environmental contaminants threatening pollinators.

Why do you feel compelled to take your stated positions on a beekeeping forum, especially when you seem to be more 'farmer/exterminator' than beekeeper at many times, and you are taking a position that's in disagreement with the statements on the issue from your own provincial beekeeping organizations?

I've paid my dues in my own circles. So, I walk the walk as well.

I don't think that the anti-neonic guys are wrong. It's the exterminator/beekeepers who have it backwards, especially on BeeSource.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> However, it's a bit creepy to see that the same usual suspects that frequent this topic, on thread after thread,


Oh don't be so hard on yourself. Just cos you post on this topic, thread after thread, far more than anyone else, might not mean you are a creep WLC.

I'd say, as you have no expertise in the field and much of what you say on the topic is ill informed, for you it's more obsession. And your tendency to always be the activist.

And since nobody knows what your job is, where your money comes from, and everything else about you is a closely guarded dark secret, it's a little rich to be criticising someone like me isn't it?

In fact my exterminator business came about as a natural fit. Through beekeeping, I became the go to guy, for bee and wasp issues for our City Council. This was often more about advice than extermination. However my work was appreciated & I was asked to get involved in wider animal management starting with a major swan and geese infestation at certain lakes. This came just when I needed something new as I had to stop beekeeping for a time. I've always been fascinated with animals & insects generally not just bees so my new role was a very interesting field for me. The kind of work I did was sometimes issues that had gone unsolved for years and required some lateral thinking problem solving approaches and was mentally stimulating.

As said I now do very little pest control so you can make your psychopath analogy and other stupidity if you wish but that would say more about you, than me.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Ian:
> 
> Why do you feel compelled to take your stated positions on a beekeeping forum, especially when you seem to be more 'farmer/exterminator' than beekeeper at many times, and you are taking a position that's in disagreement with the statements on the issue from your own provincial beekeeping organizations?


WLC, you miss the point again.

This battle is not a one side wins, the other side looses situation. Its a matter of compromise and being able to manage the issues at hand. 
If its a matter of one side wins and the other side looses, in actual fact everyone will loose. 

I know its against your DNA to admit this, but there is a balance that has to be maintained. Our system has been built on the use of chemicals and fertilizers, so they have to be included in this balance otherwise the whole structure fails. The structure is modern day agriculture and its currently supplying enough food for the world to feed on. Pests and weeds will rule the day, and unless they are controled, mal nourished soils will produce nothing, and become the farmers limiting factor. 

...and in the case of activism,... by using terms like "exterminator/beekeepers" to address others in the conversation fits the actions of an activist nicely


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> It makes a lot more sense for someone interested in environmental issues, like myself, to keep Honeybees than it does for a licensed exterminator.
> 
> In one case, like my own, it's normal. However, in the other case, local law enforcement should open a case file on them. They fit the profile of a 'psychopath' (beekeeper/exterminator; [HIGHLIGHT]fireman/arsonist[/HIGHLIGHT]).


One would think that for someone living in a highrise building in New York City you would have more _respect _for firefighters than to equate them with _*arsonists*_!  :no:



And you are a beekeeper that has posted here that you don't eat your own bees' honey out of concern for _toxic contamination_! Hardly '_normal_'. :lpf: 


:gh:


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Ian:
> 
> That's not normal on a beekeeping forum.


are you the one that decides what normal conversation is on a beekeeping forum?

Whats normal among the conversation between two beekeepers is much the same as the conversation between two grain farmers, just one is talking honey production, the other is talking crop production. Parallels can be drawn easily between the two conversations


----------



## WLC

OT:

I'm not criticizing you for being an exterminator.

It's that you're posting more like an exterminator and less like a beekeeper.

By the way, I don't have an exterminator's license, but I do have an MA in Biology.

Also, I don't see any of the real experts in the field posting on BeeSource, meaning the folks doing the actual, peer-reviewed research on Honeybees and neonicotinoid pesticides.

My own degree does qualify me to read and understand the studies though.

A pesticide applicator's license isn't a qualification to read and understand peer reviewed studies. It's just a license to apply pesticides.

So, are you still claiming to be qualified because you have an exterminator's license?.


----------



## WLC

Ian said:


> are you the one that decides what normal conversation is on a beekeeping forum?
> Whats normal among the conversation between two beekeepers is much the same as the conversation between two grain farmers, just one is talking honey production, the other is talking crop production. Parallels can be drawn easily between the two conversations


Ian, I do have a right to say that something isn't about beekeeping but is coming from a non beekeeping point of view. You can certainly give the 'applicator's viewpoint', however, I will say, 'that's not about beekeeping, it's something else.'

Some of your own views aren't about beekeeping on the neonic topic IMHO.


----------



## Ian

says the outsider looking in
its everything about what happens in beekeeping... every grain farmers action has a direct influence on how I manage my bees
I should know, I'm both of them


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> One would think that for someone living in a highrise building in New York City you would have more _respect _for firefighters than to equate them with _*arsonists*_!  :no:And you are a beekeeper that has posted here that you don't eat your own bees' honey out of concern for _toxic contamination_! Hardly '_normal_'. :lpf:
> :gh:


Rader, do you have an applicator's license?

The beekeeper/exterminator, fireman/arsonist analogy is appropriate since some of you keep bringing up the 'activist' argument.

There's clearly something that's not right about the 'dichotomy'.

As if working alone with stinging insects, while holding a lit smoker, and sharp hive tool, all while wearing a 'veiled' outfit, isn't 'weird' enough.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> It's that you're posting more like an exterminator and less like a beekeeper.


 Oh don't be ridiculous. yet again your facts are wrong. Do you read or understand nothing?

I've also edited post 223 explaining how my pest control business came about as a natural fit, but by the time I hit the post button the thread had moved on, but you may go back and read it if you wish.

Beyond that, you can paint me any way you want, it matters not. Cos nobody here has a problem with whatever else I may have done in life, other than a couple of activists like yourself.



WLC said:


> My own degree does qualify me to read and understand the studies though.


 Your degree? Singular? What happened to "I have more degrees than a thermometer" LOL?  Based on the ill informed nature of much of what you say, I doubt your degree if you have one is helping your ability to read and understand what you need to.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> There's definitely something twisted about requiring beekeepers to hold a pesticide applicator's license, and I think that it's an undercurrent in many of these 'neonic' threads that's goes largely unrecognized.
> 
> One can draw parallels between the 'beekeeper/pesticide applicator' and the 'fireman/arsonist'.
> 
> So, how many 'fireman/arsonists' do we have responding to this and other similar threads?


I had a pesticide applicators license for a cpl yrs. I also applied pesticides under the authority of the NYS Commissioner of Ag&Mkts authority when Apistan first came out.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

How many beekeepers with an applicator's license take the 'pro' neonic position on these kinds of threads?

Fellas, it's just a license to apply, not a degree that qualifies you to refute neonic studies.


----------



## Haraga

Thankfully a masters degree doesn't hold water in hands on agriculture or we would all be in trouble.


----------



## WLC

Haraga said:


> Thankfully a masters degree doesn't hold water in hands on agriculture or we would all be in trouble.


The real experts doing the research do hold all the cards with advanced degrees from institutions around the world. I cite their peer-reviewed studies frequently, not the opinions of 'some guy with bees and a license'.

Haraga, Do you hold a pesticide applicator's license?

By the way, the ABF and Bret Adee are challenging the EPA's approval of sulfoxaflor (a new neonic). I bet I can tell which side you're on.


----------



## Haraga

Yes. Pretty much all farmers in my area have an applicators license. Without it you are limited in buying chemicals. 
Keep in mind,Dubya, without farmers and ranchers, you would starve.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> How many beekeepers with an applicator's license take the 'pro' neonic position on these kinds of threads?
> 
> Fellas, it's just a license to apply, not a degree that qualifies you to refute neonic studies.


WLC have you got one? No? Then why are you asking all these other people if they have one?

Let's just say if you had one, you'd be a lot better informed than you are now.

I think you are barking up this tree because whatever it is you are trying to say re your various changing positions on neonics, have been pretty much debunked.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> I've paid my dues in my own circles. So, I walk the walk as well.


If you say so, but I have not seen it in this circle (BeeSource) judging by your contributions (posts).
Just continually talking the talk, I'm waiting for the walk the walk part.


----------



## WLC

clyderoad said:


> If you say so, but I have not seen it in this circle (BeeSource) judging by your contributions (posts).
> Just continually talking the talk, I'm waiting for the walk the walk part.


I've got bees, and I don't treat. But, I was referring to my environmental 'dues'.

clyderoad:

Do you have a pesticide applicator's license?


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> Then why are you asking all these other people if they have one?


Seems to me that when WLC and greatgabber(troll) ask this question it is so they can dismiss the opinions of others or put them in a box and then ignore them, or feel superior to them.


----------



## Ian

I would not say I'm on any "side", usually people who choose sides are not open to new information or ideas concerning these issues. 
I take on these challenges as they come and >>>*act*<<< the way I feel is most appropriate. 

having to act on issues forces you to make those hard decisions, and forces you to develop strategies to best address the issue

without having to act on the issues allows whishy washy chatter and no need to find solutions >>"cough" WLC<<


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> WLC have you got one? No? Then why are you asking all these other people if they have one?
> Let's just say if you had one, you'd be a lot better informed than you are now.
> I think you are barking up this tree because whatever it is you are trying to say re your various changing positions on neonics, have been pretty much debunked.


It's the degree that matters, not the license when it comes to understanding what the research is saying about neonics and Honeybees.

I can most certainly ask about an applicator's license. It seem to be something that those of you holding the 'pro' position have in common.

Besides, it's a fair question and it does explain, in part, why some of you have taken a particular position on this issue.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> My own degree does qualify me to read and understand the studies though.


A degree in Biology - even a masters - is worth no more than the reputation of the institution granting it. When your Biology degree comes from _Degrees-R-Us_, its completely worthless. 

Think I'm making this 'institution' up? Its all right here in testimony from a GAO Inspector before a US Senate subcommittee.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/91621.html

Part of the GAO Inspector's report ...


> In summary, we purchased a Bachelor of Science degree in _*Biology *_and a Master of Science degree in Medical Technology from _*Degrees-R-Us*_, a diploma mill. ....
> 
> http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/91621.html



:gh:

. . . . Degrees-R-Us ....
... it has a certain ring to it ...


----------



## WLC

Rader Sidetrack said:


> A degree in Biology - even a masters is worth no more than the reputation of the institution granting it. When your degree comes from _Degrees-R-Us_, its completely worthless.
> Think I'm making this 'institution' up? Its all right here in testimony from a GAO Inspector before a US Senate subcommittee.
> http://www.gao.gov/assets/100/91621.html
> Part of the GAO Inspector's report ... :gh:. . . . Degrees-R-Us .... ... it has a certain ring to it ...


Stop insulting my alma mater and fess up.

Do you have an applicator's license?


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> I've got bees, and I don't treat. But, I was referring to my environmental 'dues'.
> 
> clyderoad:
> 
> Do you have a pesticide applicator's license?


I've witnessed the environmental destruction NYC has caused to the surrounding areas for untold square miles. Air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and leeching into drinking water and coastal waters, raw sewage discharge. All thanks to NYC.
Have you been involved with these issues. Paid any 'dues' solving the environmental issues in your own backyard? 

No pesticide licenses.


----------



## JodieToadie

Folks I found WLC, why bother arguing here he is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcoDV0dhWPA#aid=P9MkRs5YTmw


----------



## Ian

JodieToadie said:


> Folks I found WLC, why bother arguing here he is:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcoDV0dhWPA#aid=P9MkRs5YTmw


ha ha ha, so fitting


----------



## WLC

clyderoad said:


> I've witnessed the environmental destruction NYC has caused to the surrounding areas for untold square miles. Air pollution, water pollution, soil contamination and leeching into drinking water and coastal waters, raw sewage discharge. All thanks to NYC. Have you been involved with these issues. Paid any 'dues' solving the environmental issues in your own backyard? No pesticide licenses.


Yes, on a reserve right next to the biggest landfill in the city.

So, clyde, why are you taking a pro neonic stance on this thread?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC, an applicators license, if you had one, would give you a lot more pertinent information re the topic in hand, than your (claimed) degree. 

I know that, because of some of the basic errors you have made over time.

Can you go and buy chemicals, or apply them by flashing your (claimed) degree? No, and there are good reasons for that.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> Yes, on a reserve right next to the biggest landfill in the city.
> 
> So, clyde, why are you taking a pro neonic stance on this thread?


The garbage dump at Jamaica Bay eh? What an example of a 'reserve'. You've said enough.

I have taken no stance. Don't assume.

My issue is with the constant display of self righteous indignation.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> WLC, an applicators license, if you had one, would give you a lot more pertinent information re the topic in hand, than your (claimed) degree.
> I know that, because of some of the basic errors you have made over time.
> Can you go and buy chemicals, or apply them by flashing your (claimed) degree? No, and there are good reasons for that.


OT: I do buy chemicals, including hazardous ones, that require special transport or can only be sold to institutions. Some, can only be delivered to universities, for example.

I prefer to avoid those for safer alternatives, because in my experience, I end up having them removed and properly disposed of anyhow. Some of the reagents in the kits we still use do need to be discarded and treated as hazardous waste for pickup and disposal though. I try to be a green scientist when possible. I still have many accounts open with biotech companies because I usually need them for doing DNA barcode work.

I know how to handle chemicals safely since I was a lab instructor as a younger man.

For instance, I was able to explain why sulfoxaflor was in fact a neonic by looking at it's structural formula and being able to determine that it was, in fact, a nicotine derivative.


----------



## WLC

clyderoad said:


> The garbage dump at Jamaica Bay eh? What an example of a 'reserve'. You've said enough.
> 
> I have taken no stance. Don't assume.
> 
> My issue is with the constant display of self righteous indignation.


You clearly don't know NYC very well.

So, if you're not taking a position on the title of the thread, what's your point?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> For instance, I was able to explain why sulfoxaflor was in fact a neonic by looking at it's structural formula and being able to determine that it was, in fact, a nicotine derivative.


Wow. You know some simple chemistry. Probably think nobody else here can do that?

Maybe you do work at Fedex.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I can most certainly ask about an applicator's license. It seem to be something that those of you holding the 'pro' position have in common.


The two things many of us hold in common are that we are beekeepers and are of the opinion that the verdict is still not conclusively determined. Not that we are proneonic use as much as we are not convinced that they are worse than the alternative.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Stop insulting my alma mater and fess up.
> 
> Do you have an applicator's license?


Do you have an applicators license?


----------



## WLC

No, I don't have an applicator's license, nor do I want one.

I would disagree with your position that the research is 'inconclusive' with regards to Honeybee health. I may have held a similar position, but the newest wave of research papers, as well as the current mass bee kills in Canada, have persuaded me.

Clothiadinin is definitely a problem. The EPA's own scientists found issues with it, but it was approved regardless.

The problem lies with the EPA. A recent audit found that their accountability system for conditionally approved pesticides was non existent.

They had lost track of them! In effect, the EPA has been reduced to a 'rubber stamp' for new pesticide approvals.

So, does anyone here think that a pesticide applicator's license will make any difference on the impact that these 'lost' pesticides could have on human health or the environment (not to mention managed pollinators)?

There are beekeepers fighting to change the EPA pesticide approval process by challenging the approval of sulfoxaflor and demanding a reform in how pesticides are approved so that they are safer for pollinators, both managed and native.

I think that beekeepers waving a 'pesticide applicator's license' will soon find it to be cold comfort.


----------



## sqkcrk

Do you hold a Degree in Beekeeping?


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> Do you hold a Degree in Beekeeping?


What's your point?


----------



## beekuk

Professor of Apiculture, a national diploma.


----------



## WLC

beekuk said:


> Professor of Apiculture, a national diploma.


Do you have a pesticide applicator's license? 

Care to answer the thread topic? Pardon me if you already have.


----------



## Haraga

It appears that some people only know what they read and have very little practical experience. It seems the reading type always have a little less invested in what's going on in the real world. Especially when it comes to agriculture.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> What's your point?


What's your answer?


----------



## WLC

I'll agree with that statement.

Having done a number of freshwater invertebrate biodiversity surveys, and having also read the recent reports coming in from Dr. Morrissey in Canada, I'm appalled by the findings and the lack of stewardship for the land that has occurred.

Neonics should have never been allowed to cause freshwater contamination on such a large scale, all in the name of neonic coated canola.


----------



## Haraga

"Read" being the key word.


----------



## WLC

Right. I've done biodiversity and pollution tolerance index surveys. So, I understood the meaning of Dr. Morrissey's findings immediately.

Fortunately, the methods of ecotoxicology are reproducible anywhere.

So, Haraga, how do you know that the anti-neonic guys are wrong?

Intuition? Psychic abilities perhaps?

As I've said before, Honeybees are an indictor species, and they're currently indicating that there's a problem with neonics in places like Canada.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> What's your point?


You seem to question those w/ a background in beekeeping yet you have none yourself other than a cpl of hives for a cpl of years which your students use for research purposes.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> You seem to question those w/ a background in beekeeping yet you have none yourself other than a cpl of hives for a cpl of years which your students use for research purposes.


There's a big difference between us however.

I've worked with quite a few different invertebrates over the years.

Honeybees are just one of them.

No, I have no need to experience all of the possible ways that a Honeybee colony can be lost to understand the neonic issue.


----------



## Haraga

Dubya, I never said they were wrong or right. All I know is what I see.


----------



## WLC

Haraga said:


> Dubya, I never said they were wrong or right. All I know is what I see.


So, because you haven't seen bees dying around the entrance of hives in Ontario, it's not a neonic bee kill?

Your own government made the finding. Try to remember that.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> There's a big difference between us however.
> 
> I've worked with quite a few different invertebrates over the years.
> 
> Honeybees are just one of them.
> 
> No, I have no need to experience all of the possible ways that a Honeybee colony can be lost to understand the neonic issue.


It goes to credibility. Your being an academic beekeeper doesn't bolster your credibilty amongst those w/ hands on experience.

Do you have any background in communications? Because you argue well, but your arguments are not successful at convincing others.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> It goes to credibility. Your being an academic beekeeper doesn't bolster your credibilty amongst those w/ hands on experience.Do you have any background in communications? Because you argue well, but your arguments are not successful at convincing others.


So, it's about me and not the neonics?

I can only lay down some of the issues involved.

However, I am aware that the majority view in places like Canada (via a poll) is that neonics are a problem.

See, I didn't have to convince anyone in Canada because it's already the majority view.

While BeeSource has its uses as a public forum, I don't think it's an accurate reflection of what most Americans think about pesticides like neonics (not to mention GMOs).

Do I really care if you agree with my opinions? Well, let's put it this way, it would get pretty boring if everyone agreed on everything.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Do I really care if you agree with my opinions?


Yes, it's very obvious you do.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> So, it's about me and not the neonics?
> 
> I can only lay down some of the issues involved.
> 
> However, I am aware that the majority view in places like Canada (via a poll) is that neonics are a problem.
> 
> See, I didn't have to convince anyone in Canada because it's already the majority view.
> 
> While BeeSource has its uses as a public forum, I don't think it's an accurate reflection of what most Americans think about pesticides like neonics (not to mention GMOs).
> 
> Do I really care if you agree with my opinions? Well, let's put it this way, it would get pretty boring if everyone agreed on everything.


So it's about opinion, not fact. Is that it? It's more important to you that people believe rather than know.

Majority opinion? Is that what passes for science or proof where you come from?


----------



## sqkcrk

It always comes down to WLC whenever WLC has something he can't just state what he has to say and leave it stand on its own.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC said:


> So, it's about me and not the neonics?
> 
> I can only lay down some of the issues involved.
> 
> However, I am aware that the majority view in places like Canada (via a poll) is that neonics are a problem.
> 
> See, I didn't have to convince anyone in Canada because it's already the majority view.
> 
> While BeeSource has its uses as a public forum, I don't think it's an accurate reflection of what most Americans think about pesticides like neonics (not to mention GMOs).
> 
> Do I really care if you agree with my opinions? Well, let's put it this way, it would get pretty boring if everyone agreed on everything.


Repeating yourself again as all this was covered by you back in August.
Go ahead and look.


----------



## Ian

Is there anybody from the US doing research on Neonics as we are here in Canada? Why hasn't there been any documented cases found with American hives, as they had found in Ontario? or any other place on the prairies for that matter? in the world?

The US dwarfs us with agriculture, Canada is just a tiny contributor of agriculture. I'm sure there has to be some kind of study which would mirror Dr. Morrissey's studdy. And just to remind you WLC, her study is only in its early stages. Lots ahead on that one. You speak of that study as if it has already been completed scrutinized and through all the channels. To understand her finding and react to them we have to know what they are first. ... but I'm sure your not really interested in "actual" facts, bits and clips of facts seem to satisfy your "professional" opinions


----------



## WLC

clyderoad said:


> Repeating yourself again as all this was covered by you back in August.
> Go ahead and look.


The beekeeper/exterminator, fireman/arsonist analogy wasn't covered though.

And, Morrissey's work was more recent.

Even the Di Prisco paper on neonic's making bees more susceptible to DWV was more recent.

So, what are you talking about?


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> And, Morrissey's work was more recent.


Morrissey's studdy has hardly started!


----------



## WLC

Ian said:


> Is there anybody from the US doing research on Neonics as we are here in Canada? Why hasn't there been any documented cases found with American hives, as they had found in Ontario? or any other place on the prairies for that matter?
> The US dwarfs us with agriculture, I'm sure there has to be some kind of study which would mirror Dr. Morrissey's studdy. And just to remind you WLC, her study is only in its early stages. Lots ahead on that one. You speak of that study as if it has already been completed scrutinized and through all the channels. To understand her finding and react to them we have to know what they are first. ... but I'm sure your not really interested in "actual" facts, bits and clips of facts seem to satisfy your "professional" opinions


There have been studies done in the U.S. though.

We'll have to wait for spring to find out what the neonic levels look like in Canada.


----------



## Ian

And your not siting these US studies over Dr. Morrissey premature findings?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> So, it's about me and not the neonics?


You have made it so. You have spent the last couple of pages attempting to way overblow your own achievements while at the same time rubbish everybody else. So, you took part in a freshwater invertebrate survey. Any moron could have done that. So, you read the Morrisey report. Any moron could have done that. So, you looked at a chemical formula and identified that it contained a nicitinoid. Any moron could have done that. Etc. Etc.... Don't complain when others find you shallow.




Ian said:


> just to remind you WLC, her study is only in its early stages. Lots ahead on that one. You speak of that study as if it has already been completed scrutinized and through all the channels. To understand her finding and react to them we have to know what they are first. ... but I'm sure your not really interested in "actual" facts, bits and clips of facts seem to satisfy your "professional" opinions


This sums up the problem I have with so much of WLC's writings, the innuendo, and 1/2 truths. referencing this study to make it appear it backs his beliefs is absolutely typical of the arguments presented ever since he started going on about neonics. 

The truth is that in his hundreds of posts on the subject there is almost nothing of any significance and I don't know why he is allowed to even get away with it. Maybe because virtually everybody can see through it so it doesn't matter. Don't know.

To WLC in particular. Ranting about neonics with no alternative is pointless. Neonicitinoids are insecticides and can therefore harm bees. But we know that already. We already know they can harm invertebrates and we already know they are environmental contaminants. You bring nothing new to the table, apart from a raft of exaggeration and innuendo. Most of the old poisons do the same things and more so. So since you are unaware of any viable options, you cannot achieve anything.


----------



## WLC

Ian said:


> And your not siting these US studies over Dr. Morrissey premature findings?


citing.
They've been cited over and over here on BeeSource.
"You can lead a horse to water..."


----------



## WLC

OT:

It's WLC 'you' this, and WLC 'you' that.

It's not about me.

It's about the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on the environment, including pollinators.

However, I would expand the term 'pollinators' by saying invertebrates if this wasn't a beekeeping forum.

"The truth is that in his hundreds of posts on the subject there is almost nothing of any significance and I don't know why he is allowed to even get away with it. Maybe because virtually everybody can see through it so it doesn't matter. Don't know."

My response to that is, "The Psychopathy of the Beekeeper/Exterminator". It's a title for a new letter that I'd like to write to 'Psychology Today'.

My first choice as a replacement technology to neonicotinoid pesticides would be RNAi.


----------



## Oldtimer

As previously explained there are as many or more issues with RNAi than there are with neonicitinoids, in the court of public opinion it would be frying pan, to the fire.

Re environmental contamination, is it that you think non neonicitinoid poisons do not contaminate the environment? Cos if that's what you are implying or saying, you'd be wrong. I'm somewhat surprised that level of learning was not included in the claimed biology degree. 

You write letters to "Psychology Today"? That is the funniest thing you have posted this page I would love to see what you say to them, care to share?


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> As previously explained there are as many or more issues with RNAi than there are with neonicitinoids, in the court of public opinion it would be frying pan, to the fire.


There are already some crops that they have discovered have characteristics caused by RNAi. RNAi pesticide protected crops would be new though.



> Re environmental contamination, is it that you think non neonicitinoid poisons do not contaminate the environment? Cos if that's what you are implying or saying, you'd be wrong. I'm somewhat surprised that level of learning was not included in the claimed biology degree.


There's a whole range of undesirable properties that neonics, like clothiadinin, have that you don't find in other pesticides. It's water solubility and long half life are two of its main drawbacks. It's ubiquitous use in seed coats is another.

By the way, I consider the "more dangerous replacements" argument to be a straw-man argument. It's not factual.


----------



## Oldtimer

Yes RNAi adjusted crops would be a publicity nightmare probably more so than neonics. Probably why we are sticking with neonics.

You are wrong about the undesirable characteristics of neonicitinoids because as previously explained the "old" insecticides are formulated to dissolve in water so your argument on that score is moot. Also some of the "old" pesticides have even longer 1/2 life than some neonics so your argument on that score is moot too. I thought the claimed biology degree would have covered stuff like that, perhaps a handlers certificate would help?

Also I have already been through all that, do you actually read anything anyone else says?


----------



## WLC

Yes I do. So should you.

It can be very difficult for some U.S. farmers to buy seed that doesn't come with a clothidinin seed coat.
There have been studies publishes that show that over 90% of the pesticide in seed coats ends up in the soil, and not in the plant, and there have been additional studies showing that sprayed neonics are not only more effective, but cause less contamination issues.

Didn't that information come with your applicator's license? Or, is your license so old, they chiseled it on a slate?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> It can be very difficult for some U.S. farmers to buy seed that doesn't come with a clothidinin seed coat.


Well first off if I wanted to learn about clothianidin I would want to talk to someone who could at least spell it.

And, you still don't read what I say. I have already stated that I would be happy to see clothianidin phased out. My reason for that is the long 1/2 life. The proviso would be that it is not replaced with something even worse. So your comments re my applicators license are once again, moot. We seem to be covering the same ground over and over you learn nothing, keep repeating the same misinformation, and bring nothing new to the table.

If you have anything useful to say, please go ahead.


----------



## WLC

Want to learn something new?

The EU ban was for neonic seed coats on certain crops.

It's not that they're completely banning neonics, it's just in certain crop seeds.

The main underlying issue with neonics has become IPM. 

Since most seeds still come with a neonic seed coat, and isn't IPM, the issue has become the widespread prophylactic use of neonics, and the environmental impact that it can have.

So, now the discussion has become how do we switch from planting every seed with a neonic coat to the IPM role of neonics.

Frankly, a farmer like IAN could better explain how easily it could be done.


----------



## Daniel Y

Oldtimer said:


> 1.Ranting about neonics with no alternative is pointless. Neonicitinoids are insecticides and can therefore harm bees.
> 
> 2. We already know they can harm invertebrates and we already know they are environmental contaminants. You bring nothing new to the table,
> 
> 3. Most of the old poisons do the same things and more so. So since you are unaware of any viable options, you cannot achieve anything.


1. has to be about one of the most ludicrous arguments I have heard? You should not recognize a problem unless you know the solution. I hope you do not have children or that any of them ever get ill. Not everyone is assumed to recognize the problem there is far more than adequate reason to speak of it.

2. So even you recognize that nics are harmful, Even likely to be harmful to bees.

3. Unacceptable behaviors in the past do not excuse unacceptable behaviors today. Being less unacceptable is not enough. Let the growers suffer the losses of the pests and diseases that effect their crops. Not push those losses off on beekeepers and others.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Want to learn something new?


What in that is new? Some of that is old news, and some is just your own (poorly thought out) opinion.

Nothing new there.


----------



## Oldtimer

Daniel Y said:


> So even you recognize that nics are harmful, Even likely to be harmful to bees.


Of course. Why do activists keep trying to paint me and others as something we are not? Before trying to pin a label on someone at least find out what they have said / believe.

I think the activists want a world where there are 2 types. Activists = good guys. Everybody else = neonicitinoid swilling bee haters. Wrong theory.


----------



## Ian

WLC said:


> Frankly, a farmer like IAN could better explain how easily it could be done.


funny how these type of studies are being done in Canada, where as our Neonic usage has not changed for 15 years and we generally have cereal rotations to break up the neonic using crops. where as in the US, the neonic usage has increased by folds as corn has adopted this treatment, along with soybeans, and put into a corn soybean corn soybean rotation. 

Canada is a small fish beside a big fish tank. You would figure these studies would be done where the product is used almost exclusively.

never the less, we have been using this treatment on our canola since the early 90's, or whenever they took Counter-5-G off the market. 

It will be interesting to see the results from this wetland study. I have a intensive wetland study being done on my farm's wet lands, looking at nutrient loading. It will be interesting to see how much of this treatment product is moving within our soils, and how much is moving with runoff waters and through ground water drainage. 

WLC, our wetlands on our farm are healthy, infact thriving. There is a difference between farmers who manage wetlands and farmers who don't. And the resulting health of those wetlands is a directly result of such. Just like anything else, there are many factors which needs to be considered before making those broad sweeping statements, as you are. 

Let the results speak for themselves, and if there is something there, perhaps we can manage the product differently to avoid these issues. Because thats what it is all about right? Finding solutions! 

Steps are being taken in the Ag industry ( in Canada anyway ) with the dry flowable on the seeds. I forget what my brother ( the crop manager ) exactly said but he said they are having to switch to a new product which will help eliminate most all the dust while seeding. This is an initiative brought about actual study and researcher/farmer/beekeeper/chemical company cooperation. Problems were found ( however isolated ) and solutions were found. 

WLC, finding solutions from problems that arise. Thats the whole point. Your missing the whole point


----------



## Ian

Its this researcher/farmer/beekeeper/chemical company cooperation that needs to be focused on here. This is where we find solutions. But anytime there is total cooperation "lobby" groups start screaming to the hill top! You see, these lobby groups are not interested in anything but the end of all chemical use period. Lobby groups are not looking for solutions, all they do is make noise and confuse the issues. And that is exactly what you are doing here WLC. If you remove chemicals from the equation, what is planned to replace them to manage our issues? Because the alternative is less production, less food, less quality food, $$$ groceries.


----------



## sqkcrk

Ian said:


> WLC, our wetlands on our farm are healthy, infact thriving. There is a difference between farmers who manage wetlands and farmers who don't. And the resulting health of those wetlands is a directly result of such. Just like anything else, there are many factors which needs to be considered before making those broad sweeping statements, as you are.
> 
> Let the results speak for themselves, and if there is something there, perhaps we can manage the product differently to avoid these issues. Because thats what it is all about right? Finding solutions!
> 
> Steps are being taken in the Ag industry ( in Canada anyway ) with the dry flowable on the seeds. I forget what my brother ( the crop manager ) exactly said but he said they are having to switch to a new product which will help eliminate most all the dust while seeding. This is an initiative brought about actual study and researcher/farmer/beekeeper/chemical company cooperation. Problems were found ( however isolated ) and solutions were found.
> 
> WLC, finding solutions from problems that arise. Thats the whole point. Your missing the whole point


Ian, you are a wise and thoughtful person.


----------

