# Time Article



## Solomon Parker

http://science.time.com/2013/08/09/the-trouble-with-beekeeping-in-the-anthropocene/?hpt=hp_t3

Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


----------



## RiodeLobo

"Randy Oliver, a beekeeper and independent researcher, told me that he could see honeybees becoming a feedlot animal like pigs or chickens, bred and kept for one purpose and having their food brought to them, rather than foraging in the semi-wild way they live now."


----------



## bbrowncods

In a lot ways humans are not much different than the Varroa.


----------



## gmcharlie

reads to my like Randy got cherry picked........ Who would have thought with a TIME reporter! How the heck did you find no one with a pulse reads time??


----------



## Solomon Parker

My wife forwarded it to me.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> http://science.time.com/2013/08/09/the-trouble-with-beekeeping-in-the-anthropocene/?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


Sam Comfort was the opening act for Randy Oliver at last month's Empire State Honey Producers Association Summer Picnic. Sam played his banjo and sang one of his songs and then introduced Randy. Randy complimented Sam's song and the message contained in it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

...and then he goes and says stuff like this. Maybe he was cherry picked, but that just means that you have to be extra careful when you talk in public.


----------



## sqkcrk

Or to a reporter.

I saw this Reporter interviewed yesterday on "The Cycle" on MSNBC. MSNBC listed cell phones amongst the things that are harmful to honey bees. I don't know if the Time Article Author sites them or not, but if he does I would question how good a job he actually did preparing to write his article.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

I don't see any reason to be upset with what Randy was quoted as saying here:

"Randy Oliver, a beekeeper and independent researcher, told me that he could see honeybees becoming a feedlot animal like pigs or chickens, bred and kept for one purpose and having their food brought to them, rather than foraging in the semi-wild way they live now."​
That quote does not say that Randy was *advocating *that bees become a feedlot animal, it simply says that he can see the _possibility _that it might turn out that way.


----------



## TWall

It does seem like many colonies that go to almonds are treated this way. The honeybees are just a tool for crop production.

Tom


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> I don't know if the Time Article Author sites them or not, but if he does I would question how good a job he actually did preparing to write his article.


I wouldn't even need to go that far to question how good a job he did.



Rader Sidetrack said:


> That quote does not say that Randy was *advocating *that bees become a feedlot animal, it simply says that he can see the _possibility _that it might turn out that way.


Maybe you don't, but you're a beekeeper (I assume) and know better. However, what it does look like to the uninitiated is that feedlot beekeeping is the way of the future, as distasteful as that may seem. It works with cows right? I use the word "propaganda" not just as a buzz word, but as an actual word. There are still far too many people who get into beekeeping to "save the bees" and articles like this only fan the flames. What they don't get is that they're usually walking right into doing what's causing the problem to begin with. All the beekeeping suppliers should be happy and happier that "all these horrible things are happening to the bees," what with all the new customers all the time.

Geez, am I getting cynical or what?


----------



## sqkcrk

The Author didn't even actually quote what Randy Oliver said. So we don't know what else he may have said to the Reporter. Having been misquoted and taken out of context by Reporters I don't automatically blame the person interviewed for statements with which I have a problem.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> Alarmist, *ignorant*, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


Why the knee jerk, straight to abuse, reaction, to something that is an obvious 3rd hand cherry picked misquote?

Solomon the other posters have it correct, and you could grow personally by understanding and applying the principles alluded to in post #6


----------



## beemandan

TWall said:


> It does seem like many colonies that go to almonds are treated this way. The honeybees are just a tool for crop production.


Strikes me too that this is already being done on a relatively large scale. How many hundreds of thousands of hives will be migrating to CA…only to be placed in huge holding yards, fed pollen subs and HFCS to ‘fatten ‘em up’ for almonds.
I can’t criticize Randy Oliver….it appears that he is just the messenger.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'm sure that's exactly the type of thing Randy was referring to and as such he was correct, not *ignorant*. 

Then the reporter misquotes to sensationalise, which is what reporters sometimes do. The reporters job is to sell copy.

The only ignorance I see here is the failure to understand that, combined with the readiness to personally abuse Randy. Not a good look at all.


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> Strikes me too that this is already being done on a relatively large scale. How many hundreds of thousands of hives will be migrating to CA…only to be placed in huge holding yards, fed pollen subs and HFCS to ‘fatten ‘em up’ for almonds.
> I can’t criticize Randy Oliver….it appears that he is just the messenger.


Not to fatten them up but to get them through. From what I understand. Maybe that's just symantics.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> I'm sure that's exactly the type of thing Randy was referring to and as such he was correct, not *ignorant*.
> 
> Then the reporter misquotes to sensationalise, which is what reporters sometimes do. The reporters job is to sell copy.
> 
> The only ignorance I see here is the failure to understand that, combined with the readiness to personally abuse Randy. Not a good look at all.


I'll bet that all of the names are correct.


----------



## beemandan

Removed voluntarily by poster


----------



## beemandan

sqkcrk said:


> Not to fatten them up but to get them through. From what I understand.


I dunno Mark. They want 'em booming earlier than nature would have them.
I'm not being critical....I don't have any desire to take my bees to almonds....but I'm in no position to judge those who do.


----------



## WLC

Honeybees are non native livestock here in the U.S. .

You can treat em like hogs/chickens if you like.

However, it's a sore spot with some orthodox treatment free types.

You know, natural feed only...


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> However, it's a sore spot with some orthodox treatment free types.
> 
> You know, _natural feed only_...


If this is intended to be a slam towards Solomon, at least have the courtesy of slamming him for something he _actually _said, or does. 

If you read some of Solomon's posts you will find that he does feed [_gasp_!!] *granulated sugar*, when appropriate. That is not _natural feed _by any reasonable definition.


----------



## WLC

So, Tim Ives would call him a 'sugar feeding idiot'. 

I don't see Randy as an 'ignorant alarmist'.


----------



## Oldtimer

Ha Ha yes the other Tim Ives expression that I thought was quite funny was "living in candyland" LOL 

Which would include me I will feed sugar if warranted, but still saw the humour in the statement. 

Tim is a great guy his beekeeping is very different to most of what we read. He also, has a big mouth, but has the skills and results to back it, I wish he would post more.


----------



## squarepeg

beemandan said:


> I don't have any desire to take my bees to almonds....but I'm in no position to judge those who do.


this is how i feel about it too dan. 

it's also how i feel about treating vs. not and feeding vs. not.

unless we think that we're doing the bees a big favor by keeping them in in our hives, that they are somehow better off being managed than they would be on their own, we have to admit that we are all exploiting them for our purposes, even if that is nothing more than watching them fly.


----------



## sqkcrk

beemandan said:


> I dunno Mark. They want 'em booming earlier than nature would have them.
> I'm not being critical....I don't have any desire to take my bees to almonds....but I'm in no position to judge those who do.


Yeah, I guess you are right about that after all.


----------



## jim lyon

squarepeg said:


> this is how i feel about it too dan.
> 
> it's also how i feel about treating vs. not and feeding vs. not.
> 
> unless we think that we're doing the bees a big favor by keeping them in in our hives, that they are somehow better off being managed than they would be on their own, we have to admit that we are all exploiting them for our purposes, even if that is nothing more than watching them fly.


Well said.

Yet it is suggested there is a bee apocalypse looming because 1 1/2 million strong healthy hives were not delivered to the almond growers last year and put into these so called "feedlot" conditions as if whatever the almond growers demand is the new standard for bee health in our country. On this very thread are a couple of good beekeepers stating they would prefer not to send their bees, and they are hardly the only ones. If anyone has a better idea of how to prep a few thousand thousand semi load lots of hives that have been shipped 1,000+ miles to get them large at a time of year when most northern hives are still in winter wraps the industry would love to hear about it.


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Nuuuuutra Beeeeeeeeee.


----------



## David LaFerney

Solomon Parker said:


> http://science.time.com/2013/08/09/the-trouble-with-beekeeping-in-the-anthropocene/?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


Have they changed the article since you read it? Because that's not even close to how it came across to me.

You aren't covering yourself in glory when you call Randy Oliver (or anyone else for that matter) names. If he's ignorant then I must be too ignorant to understand that he is. Randy Oliver is one of the few people who does beekeeping experiments and shares his work, and does it in a way which acknowledges and tries to minimize confirmation bias. Most of what is available is 100 percent anecdotal evidence, and not even trying to be scientific. I think we all owe a little bit of respect to anyone who does that.


----------



## JRG13

What about funny Chinese honey.... isn't that produced kind of how Randy is describing keeping bees?


----------



## odfrank

>Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.

I attended a Randy Oliver class recently and found him to be the most articulate, well informed and educational speaker I have heard in my 40+ years of attending bee lectures. He clearly backed up what I have concluded for years, that it is mite vectored viruses that winter kill my bees.

When Solomon has 1% of the experience, 1% of the bees hives, 1% of the demand as a nationwide lecturer, completed 1% of the research that Randy has done, and published 1% of the articles that Randy has, he might then be 1% of the way to being able to compare himself to Randy. 

As a totally uncredited and unqualified "teacher" who thinks that he has something to offer us with his "Ask questions Here" threads, Solomon has once again made a fool of himself with this comment.


----------



## jim lyon

Keith Jarrett said:


> Nuuuuutra Beeeeeeeeee.


:doh: What was I thinking?


----------



## Keith Jarrett

Solomon Parker;983393Alarmist said:


> Well...Well I've known Randy for twenty five years and is a close friend, I got Randy started writing with ABJ back in 2008, I talk with Randy alot about the bee industry where its been and where it's going. To call Randy ignorant is just foolish. Sad to hear this on this board.


----------



## JRG13

I think that was a little harsh Frank but such is life. I don't always agree with Sol, but I find his information is typically very useful and he's very open with what has worked for him.


----------



## odfrank

JRG13 said:


> I think that was a little harsh Frank but such is life. I don't always agree with Sol, but I find his information is typically very useful and he's very open with what has worked for him.


Harsher than a nobody calling a re-known authority "ignorant"?


----------



## julysun

odfrank said:


> Harsher than a nobody calling a re-known authority "ignorant"?


 :applause:


----------



## WLC

"If anyone has a better idea of how to prep a few thousand thousand semi load lots of hives that have been shipped 1,000+ miles to get them large at a time of year when most northern hives are still in winter wraps the industry would love to hear about it."

Mexico. 

"We've dealt with insecticides for a long time...I'm not thoroughly convinced this is a major issue."

This Randy-ism is something that I'll characterize as 'not even wrong'.

He's been downplaying the role of neonics for a while now. Especially since his association with Monsanto/Bayer.

He's not an ignorant alarmist. But, I would call him an 'intelligent agent'.

He's on the wrong team.


----------



## WLC

"Harsher than a nobody calling a re-known authority "ignorant"?"

He's no authority.

We could go even harsher and use the term, "Lying industry shill".

But, we won't since we're only giving an example of what some folks would like to say about Randy. 

So, while some of us think that Randy is being gassed up like a ballon that's gonna pop...

Marla Spivak, that's a 'REAL' authority. She's a genius.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> We could go even harsher and use the term, "Lying industry shill".





WLC said:


> But, we won't


But, you just did.

Soon as Randy gets paid to do some research for "the industry", there's going to be some folks although surprisingly few, question his integrity.

Randy is quite logical and I believe honest, in his assessment of the evidence on the matter. The study he released does not even draw a whole lot of conclusions, more, it simply presents a bunch of facts he has assembled that lead to their own conclusion the reader can make their own assessment. Sorry, calling the man a liar offensive, in fact I would challenge you to either reference one of these lies, or withdraw the accusation. However the neonics debate is not for this thread it has been, and no doubt will be, debated elsewhere.

The above type of abuse without any sensible explanation is just abuse and contributes nothing. I thought this behavior style would just be confined to the OP. Sorry WLC.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer:

First, take out your current issue of TIME magazine. (August 19, 2013)

p. 30, first paragraph.

"Pesticide makers argue that actual levels of neonicotinoid exposure in the field are too low to be the main culprit in colony loss. "We've dealt with insecticides for a long time, "says Randy Oliver..."I'm not thouroughly convinced this is a major issue."

See what I mean NOW Oldtimer?

You have to see it in the context of the whole article to understand why folks can say that Randy looks like a shill.

Recently, he claimed that there's no evidence for neonicotinoids impacting colony health. That was under the heading "facts".

That's blatantly untrue. And, yes, he is a Bayer spokesman.

Do you see why folks can get 'harsh', and still be truthful?

"ignorant alarmist" was mild.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> he claimed that there's no evidence for neonicotinoids impacting colony health. That was under the heading "facts".
> 
> That's blatantly untrue.


In context, I don't actually recall him saying that. Here is a direct quote from him "•There are occasional, but intolerable bee kills due to seed planting dust (especially so this year), from which individual beekeepers may suffer serious financial losses. This issue must be resolved!"
Is that saying neonicitiniods do not affect colony health? No it isn't. Be careful it is not you who is the liar.

Abusing someone, and then lying about what they say, to justify the abuse, is just more abuse of the worst kind. Even if you feel strongly about neonicitiniods, this type of behaviour is hardly acceptable.



WLC said:


> "We've dealt with insecticides for a long time, "says Randy Oliver..."I'm not thouroughly convinced this is a major issue."
> 
> See what I mean NOW Oldtimer?


I've seen what you mean all along.

Don't agree with it. That's all. Here briefly, is why.

There are some people who have convinced themselves that neonicitioids are the major factor in bee colony losses. Randy though, is "not convinced" of this, however he does believe neonicitiniods can badly effect bees as I have pointed out. And in view of the lack of evidence for neonics being the biggest ever problem, that outlook in my view, is the correct scientific response at this time. What if the major cause is something else? Should we not be open minded to that? A proper scientist would be. The people who have decided that neonicitiniods cause everything, despite lack of conclusive evidence for this, are not following proper scientific method.

WLC I am not objecting to your opinion on the matter, it's a democracy, you can hold any opinion you like. But this name calling and abuse and seeming hatred almost, of someone with a different view, does not progress anything and is irrational.


----------



## beemandan

Simply because someone expresses an opinion different from your own doesn’t make them ignorant or a shill. To accuse them of such is not a sorry reflection on the target but is an unflattering indication of the source's character.


----------



## beemandan

removed by poster


----------



## WLC

Let's keep this in the context of the TIME article, shall we?

So, while Randy is quoted as saying, "I'm not thoroughly convinced this is a major issue."

You simply need to google Randy, find his blog, and voila!

He's written exhaustively on the impact of insectidicides on beekeeping.

Of course he KNOWS that it's a major issue.

I'm not the one that's been lumped in with pesticide manufacturers and quoted as saying that it isn't a major issue.

Especially after having read through over a dozen previous paragraphs in the article.

I can see why someone would characterize Randy as "a lying shill" the way he's being quoted in that paragraph.

I don't agree with 'ignorant alarmist'. (Although I agree with useless.)

Randy isn't ignorant or an alarmist. I would say the opposite.

But, you will have to read the entire article to understand how Bryan Walsh skillfully popped Randy's balloon. 

Nicely done.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> I don't agree with 'ignorant alarmist'. (Although I agree with useless.)
> Randy isn't ignorant or an alarmist. I would say the opposite..





WLC said:


> "ignorant alarmist" was mild.


Now you are contradicting yourself. 

And have added yet another insult to your list, this time calling him "*useless*".



WLC said:


> Let's keep this in the context of the TIME article, shall we?
> 
> You simply need to google Randy, find his blog, and voila!


Well which? Keep it with the TIME article, or go to google? It's only minor, but your arguments are all over the place, contradictory, and confusing.





WLC said:


> Of course he KNOWS that it's a major issue.


How do you know what he KNOWS? Sounds like wild speculation on your part, to me.

End of day WLC you have your opinion, and even though it is contradictory and based on speculation, I am quite aware nothing I say will ever change your opinion. I am not actually seeking to change your opinion, it is set.

My issue was more with the abuse and the lies, which applies not only to you but also the opening post.


----------



## squarepeg

if more people would set the bar a little higher (as randy has) on what it takes to be 'thoroughly convinced' we might stand a chance at getting to the truth about what's causing colonies to collapse.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC, have you taken things up w/ Randy. He told me to tell you to e-mail him. He'd be glad to communicate directly w/ you.


----------



## WLC

You don't have the TIME article in front of you, do you Oldtimer? I do.

Randy does indeed look bad.

My own reaction to the 'not thoroughly convinced' quote is too colorful too print. I think that some folks would express the opinion 'lying shill' at that point in the article because that's how the author set Randy up.

Perhaps Sol applied 'ignorant' for this quote?

If the 'feedlot' quote is where Sol applied alarmist, I might say that it's already happening.

I'm not going to back down on how the average TIME reader will view Randy's p.30 quote because that's how the article was written.


"My issue was more with the abuse and the lies, which applies not only to you but also the opening post."

I'm not lying, nor am I being abusive. Randy got himself into this one.

I do agree with the OP's sentiment however.

I will say that I felt genuine sorrow for Jim Doan's predicament.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I will say that I felt genuine sorrow for Jim Doan's predicament.


That's nice. Did you do anything for him after feeling sorry for him? Make any suggestions? Try to help him figure out what happened?

Randy is available for discussion. You and Solomon should contact him and report back to us what your encounter was like. I don't see what good you do by telling us how you feel about something Randy supposedly said to a Time Reporter.


----------



## Daniel Y

jim lyon said:


> Well said.
> 
> Yet it is suggested there is a bee apocalypse looming because 1 1/2 million strong healthy hives were not delivered to the almond growers last year and put into these so called "feedlot" conditions as if whatever the almond growers demand is the new standard for bee health in our country. On this very thread are a couple of good beekeepers stating they would prefer not to send their bees, and they are hardly the only ones. If anyone has a better idea of how to prep a few thousand thousand semi load lots of hives that have been shipped 1,000+ miles to get them large at a time of year when most northern hives are still in winter wraps the industry would love to hear about it.


Grow Almonds 'Naturally"


----------



## WLC

Mark:

Do you have Time in front of you? If not, then it might be hard for you to understand "the setup".

Randy was setup to look like a pesticide industry spokesman who doesn't think that they're a major issue.

This was after paragraphs on the dangers of neonics to bees.

Really.

I'm reflecting on Sol's brief take on how Randy looked in the TIME article.

I think that Sol's comments weren't an accurate reflection on how badly Randy came off.

That's it.


----------



## Oldtimer

As I keep saying, I am not seeking to change your opinion on the matter, as your opinion is set in stone. I also believe that different opinions are healthy for society generally, even though I may not agree with them.

As stated my issue was with the abuse and the lies. However you say you have not been abusive and you have not lied. Nobody else would agree, but if that's what you think, well, I probably cannot alter your values.

An undercurrent of seeming hatred also appears to be coming through, as in your way over the top reaction to "not thoroughly convinced". 
I'm not thoroughly convinced either, my bar is a little higher than just run with the first theory on something I hear. Does that mean I too should be subject to name calling, have my words twisted, and be lied about?

Randy has offered to dialogue with you directly, which is certainly more generous than I would have been were I him. 
I would suggest you accept the offer, talking in person might get you better acquainted with the man, rather than the magazine article.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Mark:
> 
> Do you have Time in front of you? If not, then it might be hard for you to understand "the setup".


No, I do not. I am really tired of all of this. I'm just going to keep my bees as best I can and to heck w/ authors of articles that want to make money off of my industry. All of the attention has been good for local honey sales, but I'm tired of people feeling sorry for me and my bees when they know nothing about me, my experience and my bees experiences.

We have a new "interim" Minister at our Church. After introducing myself he asked me what I do for a living. (I had one of my beesource t-shirts on at the time) "Oh, you must be dealing w/ that CCD thing. How's that going for you?" We didn't have time for the in depth conversation necassary so I said, "Just fine thank you."

Maybe we will have time for a more complete answer sometime.


----------



## WLC

You don't have TIME or you would agree with me. I didn't make Randy look like a spokesman. I didn't put that quote right after 100's of words on the impact of neonics.

Take it up with Bryan Walsh.

It's one of the perils of speaking to journalists.

T'is Randy's problem.

Not Sol's, not mine.


----------



## gmcharlie

Like it or not, Randy has and CONTINUES to do more for beekeeping and the industry as a whole, than ALL of us clowns combined...... from me, to Solomon, and definatly way past WLC.......
hey may have got tweaked by a reporter... but the reporter did go to a source, which was Randy, not us speculators...


----------



## Daniel Y

WLC said:


> Oldtimer:
> 
> You have to see it in the context of the whole article to understand why folks can say that Randy looks like a shill.


So does this make Randy a shill or mean that folks have poor vision?


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> You don't have TIME or you would agree with me. I didn't make Randy look like a spokesman. I didn't put that quote right after 100's of words on the impact of neonics.
> 
> Take it up with Bryan Walsh.
> 
> It's one of the perils of speaking to journalists.
> 
> T'is Randy's problem.
> 
> Not Sol's, not mine.


Okay. I'll take your word for it. You stated the facts as you see them. No need for further discussion as far as I can tell. Notice that Solomon is not beating this dead horse? Follow his example thank you.

Or maybe he is busy weeding his garden.


----------



## WLC

Time for breakfast.


----------



## Oldtimer

Daniel Y said:


> So does this make Randy a shill or mean that folks have poor vision?


It means he cannot find anything to quote that will back his position.

And, remember when I asked for a reference to one of the claimed lies, he couldn't provide one, instead giving a changed version of what Randy said, no reference of course when the statement doesn't exist.


----------



## WLC

What's your problem Oldtimer?

Since you obviously don't have the TIME article...

"Arguments*against*neonic*seed*treatments* Actual*facts*
The*neonicotinoids*have*been*“linked”*to*increased* colony*mortality.*
In*actuality,*such*a*“link”*is*merely*an*urban*legend,* and*has*never*been*demonstrated*or*confirmed*in* any*study.*
On*the*other*hand,*the*residues*of*other*classes*of* pesticides*are*more*suspect*for*causing*increased* brood*or*adult*bee*mortality*[24]."

From "What happened to the bees this spring,2013".

This is a lie: "In actuality, such a “link” is merely an urban legend, and has never been demonstrated or confirmed in any study." 

*
http://www.ehrenfelds.net/bees/bees.pdf

That's the proof you wanted?

You just had to ask for proof that Randy lied?

Now that you've seen it for yourself...


----------



## Andrew Dewey

I think there is over thinking here. I don't read anything in Randy's comments that are not in keeping with what is being learned via scientific research into the causes of CCD. Take for example the van Englesdorp (however his name is spelled!!) study into pollen brought back to the hive by bees placed for commercial pollination on a variety of crops - As many as 21 ag chemicals (he was looking for pesticides & fungicides) were found in the pollen, and most of the pollen was from non target plants. If bee collected pollen is part of the problems making bees sick, feeding pollen sub (and then we are feed lot beekeeping) might make sense. Of course cleaning up the environment so that honey bees and native pollinators collect ag-chem free pollen _*ought*_ to be the first priority, but it will require massive changes in farming practices in the US - in other words I don't see it happening anytime soon and would welcome a work around.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> "Arguments*against*neonic*seed*treatments* Actual*facts*
> The*neonicotinoids*have*been*“linked”*to*increased* colony*mortality.* ... ... ...


If you believe the inclusion of all those asterisks somehow increases the readability or validity of what you post, I suspect most readers will strongly disagree.

From my perspective, _Oldtimer _and Randy both have significantly more credibility than _WLC_.


----------



## Oldtimer

Sorry WLC your post makes no sense to me.

Could you say whatever it is in plain English?


----------



## Barry

Oldtimer said:


> Randy has offered to dialogue with you directly, which is certainly more generous than I would have been were I him.
> I would suggest you accept the offer, talking in person might get you better acquainted with the man, rather than the magazine article.


See, this can't happen because WLC is incognito and if he contacted Randy, he would then blow his cover. That's what happens when people choose to live behind the curtain.


----------



## WLC

Yawn.

Oldtimer asks for proof that Randy is a 'beewasher', and I provide it with links.

By the way, why should I contact an industry spokesperson?


----------



## JRG13

odfrank said:


> Harsher than a nobody calling a re-known authority "ignorant"?


I stand corrected, sorry bout my earlier post frank


----------



## WLC

"Arguments against neonic seed treatments:

Myth: The neonicotinoids have been “linked” to increased colony mortality,

Actual facts: In actuality, such a “link” is merely an urban legend, and has never been demonstrated or confirmed in any study."

I hope that you can see that the 'actual facts' are a lie.


"From my perspective, Oldtimer and Randy both have significantly more credibility than WLC."

sidetrack: well, after the Time article, I would just list Oldtimer.

Barry: Randy knows how to reach me if he likes. 

But, the fact remains, Randy looks like an industry spokesman that doesn't believe that insecticides are a major issue for beekeeping.

:scratch:


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> But, the fact remains, Randy looks like an industry spokesman that doesn't believe that insecticides are a major issue for beekeeping.


talk about spin. 

the 'fact' remains that anybody who has read oliver and is commenting objectively cannot say with a straight face that:

1. randy 'looks like an industry spokesman'. he has repeatedly outlined his strict standards for the open and straightforward presentation of any data that he was involved with collecting, as well as a consistent history of not being shy to point the finger of blame on industry when it is deserved, including calling for compensation for losses *attributalbe* to pesticides.

2. that randy 'doesn't believe that insecticides are a major issue for beekeeping'. again, what he repeatedly states in his articles is that the information available at this point in time does not support that the 30% of colonies that are lost each year is a direct result of neonicotinoids. he is quick to point out that pesticides (including the one's that beekeepers introduce) are a very important issue.

so what is it wlc, professional rivalry? jealousy? were you or your ideas passed over by beeologics? it's pretty obvious that you are portraying oliver's position in a manner inconsistent with reality and as though you are letting a personal agenda trump reality.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

Do you, or don't you, have the TIME article in front of you?

Then you can comment.

I've been reflecting on Sol's comments, and how Randy is 'typecast' in the article.

I'm not sure what the rest of you are going on about.

Oldtimer asked for a lie from Randy, and he got it.

Simple, right?

Now for the why of Bryan Walsh's placement of Randy's quote in that particular section of the article, right smack dab in the middle of the industry take on the issue...?


----------



## squarepeg

aw come on wlc, your attack on oliver in this thread and many others extends well beyond his typecasting in the time article.

what's your beef?


----------



## WLC

Do you mean to say that it's O.K. for a Bayer spokesman to say: there's no link between neonics and colony mortality, and insecticides aren't a major issue?

Randy is a public figure and Bayer spokesman at this point.

Should I use big fluffy pillows? 

How long before the honeymoon is over?

Who called a truce between Monsanto, Bayer and U.S. Beekeepers?

Really, squarepeg. What are your thoughts?


----------



## squarepeg

my thoughts are:

1. that labeling randy as a 'bayer spokesman' is both inaccurate and unfair.

2. portraying randy's call for getting to the facts before jumping to conclusions as 'a truce' is both inaccurate and unfair.

3. if this isn't something personal between you and randy, i can't help but conclude that you are engaged in, how did you phrase it, 'pesticide politics'?

i can see how randy's objective, fact based, open-minded approach would cause discomfort for those spending time and treasure on the political front pushing for bans on pesticides.

your point of view is yours to own wlc, and i have appreciated your contributions to the forum, but someone as bright as you shouldn't have a hard time understanding why some of us here are scratching our heads over why you persist in making randy oliver and his perspective something that they are not.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Should I use big fluffy pillows?
> 
> How long before the honeymoon is over?


Is this the kind of post you really want to be remembered for? :scratch:

Perhaps its time to start bookmarking some of your more .... _memorable .... _quotes.


----------



## WLC

I thought Randy was getting six figures for doing this?

I'm not getting paid. Are you?


----------



## squarepeg

nice try. 

another example of trying to turn the corner on the conversation rather than giving a direct response.

i answered your questions, how 'bout answering mine.


----------



## JWChesnut

If I was a Bayer strategist, and I am not, and I was asked how to derail a looming restriction on Neo-Nics; my very first suggestion would be to create an anonymous on-line troll so obnoxious and intemperate that no one in his right mind would support the troll's positions.

The most logical explanation for WLC is he is a pure-false-flag, created with the sole purpose of making any attempt to regulate Bayer products a non-starter within the Bee community. The technique is to be loud, obnoxious, unpleasant, and irrational. He is doing an admirable job of making it impossible to comment even-handedly on neo-nics.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> But, the fact remains, Randy looks like an industry spokesman that doesn't believe that insecticides are a major issue for beekeeping.


I notice this subtle shift now in your words. Now it's "insecticides."


----------



## squarepeg

JWChesnut said:


> The most logical explanation for WLC is he is a pure-false-flag, created with the sole purpose of making any attempt to regulate Bayer products a non-starter within the Bee community. The technique is to be loud, obnoxious, unpleasant, and irrational. He is doing an admirable job of making it impossible to comment even-handedly on neo-nics.


(slapping forehead)

dang, looks like i fell for it hook, line, and sinker!


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

So you don't believe that Randy is on the Bayer payroll.

What facts is he talking about? That he didn't like the way the article portrayed his views? That's just too bad.

Yes, this is about BeeWashing, aka pesticide politics.

I say, "Is so!", he'll say, "Is not!"

"I notice this subtle shift now in your words. Now it's "insecticides." "

From his quote. Where else?

As for how corporate corruption can reach into the bee community...

Isn't that Randy's new gig?

They got to him alright. You're club can be next (for a generous donation to the club, of course).

All you have to do is ask.

"nice try. another example of trying to turn the corner on the conversation rather than giving a direct response.i answered your questions, how 'bout answering mine."

I don't answer 'do you still kick your dog?' type questions. 

Once again, I'm not a paid spokesman.

Why are you defending a paid spokesperson? Seriously? Did your club/organization get its donation so you feel obligated?

Not me.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> "I notice this subtle shift now in your words. Now it's "insecticides." "
> 
> From his quote. Where else?


Nowhere else. That's the point, but I'm afraid for you to understand this, we will have to go another 10 rounds and I'm not interested in that.


----------



## gmcharlie

Come on guysa were arguing with a pig in the pigpen hes getting more out of pushing our buttons... let him wallow in his own stye....


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Once again, I'm not a paid spokesman.


Yes you are.


----------



## GLOCK

What a great thread all the great beekeeper fight your all just the best.
I have learned so much from many of you .
opcorn: I would rather read this thread then watch tv. I respect all of you thank you and keep up the good work:applause:


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Barry: Randy knows how to reach me if he likes.
> 
> :scratch:


Randy Oliver knows you? Why would he contact you? You are the one being critical of him, not vice versa.


----------



## WLC

I didn't write the article that put him in an unfavorable light.

Keep that in mind.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I thought Randy was getting six figures for doing this?
> 
> I'm not getting paid. Are you?


Getting six figures for what? Is that in the article?


----------



## WLC

Do you even have a TIME magazine article? Or are you kibitzing, like everyone else?


----------



## sqkcrk

I do not have the magazine. Maybe I'll look for it when I get to town next. I live in the country. Don't go by a place that sells Time when out working bees.


----------



## WLC

Yeah, but I'm trying to paint a picture for a bunch of folks, who don't have the magazine article either, and they think that I'm beating up on Randy.

I'm being objectively analytical in how he came off: he looks like an industry spokesman, who doesn't think that insecticides are a major issue, and that Honeybees will end up on feed lots.

I'm not making it up.


----------



## sqkcrk

Fine. I believe you told us what you read or how it looks to you. I don't know why you keep going on and on about it.

Does it say in the article that Randy is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the insecticide industry?


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

Why don't you email him and ask him yourself?


----------



## Oldtimer

Why don't you? You have the problem.



sqkcrk said:


> Does it say in the article that Randy is getting hundreds of thousands of dollars from the insecticide industry?


Of course not. But it's so important to bash Randy that telling lies is OK. 



WLC said:


> Oldtimer asked for a lie from Randy, and he got it.
> Simple, right?


Well, no. Best I could understand from your almost incomprehensible posts on the subject, you presented a quote from Randy you disagreed with. You kinda missed that not everything you disagree with is automatically a lie.

Out of your own lies, one of the biggest, and worst I have seen so far is the one I pointed out to you a while back, queried you on, and have not as yet received a satisfactory response. One of the issues I have had from the beginning with neonics cause everything people, is the profusion of lies through their literature. It seems telling lies is fine, if it promotes the cause. But it hinders the cause, and has done, because people come to distrust them and rightly so. At the same time though, the neonics cause everything people are very ready to accuse their opponents of telling lies, which adds hypocrisy to the whole sorry mess.



WLC said:


> Randy is a public figure and Bayer spokesman at this point.


Randy has said what he said. That it does not conform with your extremist view does not make him a Bayer spokesman. Or you would have to say that I and most others are also Bayer spokesmen.

Oops! Should I even have let that idea loose!


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> sqkcrk:
> 
> Why don't you email him and ask him yourself?


Why do you answer my question w/ a question? It's either in the article or it isn't. Why the evasiveness?

What would I e-mail him about? Your accusations? I spoke to him face to face about the Harvard piece and he said you should contact him directly yourself. Why should I e-mail him and say WLC says this what do you have to say about it? I'd feel like a fool. No thanks.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Notice that Solomon is not beating this dead horse? Follow his example thank you.


Mark, I like you more all the time. Do you know haw hard it is to sit back and watch this convo without clearing my name? But I thought I'd give the usual suspects the opportunity to dig their holes, to misquote and grandstand. Now that they have, I feel it's a good time to clarify the obvious.

The article is alarmist, ignorant, and Randy is not helping as usual by providing ridiculous quotes to sensationalist reporters. Of course I wouldn't call Randy or anybody else anything, it's against the rules. But it's nice to be reminded who is more than willing to think ill of fellow beekeepers rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks fellas. It is always good to be reminded who your friends aren't.


----------



## WLC

Saying that there is no evidence that neonics cause colony losses is a lie. Randy reads the same scientific literature that I do. There's plenty of evidence.

Of course, the rest of the article is just fine.

Randy needs to stop denying that there's a link between CCD /colony losses/bee health and neonics.

It's the scientific consensus that neonics are a factor.

Oh, but wait, he's got that new Bayer gig....

Nevermind.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> it's nice to be reminded who is more than *willing to think ill of fellow beekeepers* rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt.


Coming from you Solomon, an ironic statement to say the least.


----------



## WLC

Well, it looks like I've completely misinterpreted Sol's cryptic comments.

Nevemind.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Saying that there is no evidence that neonics cause colony losses is a lie.


And saying Randy is saying something that he doesn't, is a lie.



WLC said:


> Well, it looks like I've completely misinterpreted Sol's cryptic comments. Never mind.


 Yes never mind. It is certainly not the first thing you have misinterpreted.


----------



## WLC

There is always the EPA lawsuit by the National Pollinator Defense Fund and allies.

Brett Adee is leading the way.

As for Randy...


----------



## WLC

"And saying Randy is saying something that he doesn't, is a lie."

He wrote it in that article I provided the link for earlier.

But, I bet that you didn't read that or the TIME article either.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> As for Randy...


A rather vague statement, presumably meant to insinuate something.

But hey as has been apparent from the outset, your opinion is set in stone.


----------



## squarepeg

you have shared your interest and concern regarding native pollinators wlc, should we assume that you are supporting the lawsuit?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> But, I bet that you didn't read that or the TIME article either.


Wrong yet again.


----------



## WLC

As WLC? Heh, heh.

Of course I do!

Maybe that explains why I don't tolerate Benedict Arnolds?

Oldtimer:

Go ahead and believe what you want. I won't convince you that Randy is toe-ing the company line.

But, it's not your fight anyhow. Not really.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> But, it's not your fight anyhow. Not really.


You are correct, I am not in this "fight", as my mind is not made up on the neonics matter, I am open mindedly awaiting more science. 

Meantime, I am "not fully convinced", to me the most reasonable position.

As previously stated, my objection is to the abuse. However both perpetrators have stepped up and made it clear that in their minds there has been no abuse, name calling, etc.

When two people are in such blatant denial, there is little I can do, other than wish them well, and hope they somehow stay out of trouble although that will be unlikely.


----------



## David LaFerney

Solomon Parker said:


> Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual. <<<that is what you said in the OP.
> 
> This is what you say in comment #93>>>>>>> The article is alarmist, ignorant, and Randy is not helping as usual by providing ridiculous quotes to sensationalist reporters. Of course I wouldn't call Randy or anybody else anything, it's against the rules. But it's nice to be reminded who is more than willing to think ill of fellow beekeepers rather than giving them the benefit of the doubt. Thanks fellas. It is always good to be reminded who your friends aren't.


If what you said in post #1 was not what you meant, and you waited ninety some comments later while you sat back and watched the sparks fly to clarify then you have little ground for acting all hurt and misunderstood.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> As WLC? Heh, heh.
> 
> Of course I do!
> 
> Maybe that explains why I don't tolerate Benedict Arnolds?



yes, that does explain why the inconvenient truths that oliver and others provide precipitates these visceral attacks from you.

you are clearly biased and have an agenda wlc, your playing 'pesticide politics'.

(unless you really are reverse trolling as jwc suggests) 

i'm with oldtimer and the rest, (including randy), who would rather admit that we know what we don't know, and look forward with an open mind for what are as yet unanswered questions regarding colony losses.


----------



## Oldtimer

I'd actually go further and say that to deny the name calling and abuse is straight up blatant lies, all the more extraordinary when we can all see it.


----------



## WLC

What a load of self serving nonsense.

Of course neonics are causing colony losses. Of course their residues are building up and contaminating our soil and water.

That's what the scientific literature is showing. It isn't a bias. It's evidence.

However, I'm not the one with the hidden agenda.

I call a lie a lie.

Nothing hidden there.


----------



## Oldtimer

Again, your opinion, which by now we all realise is set in stone.

My issue was with the abuse.


----------



## Solomon Parker

David LaFerney said:


> If what you said in post #1 was not what you meant, and you waited ninety some comments later while you sat back and watched the sparks fly to clarify then you have little ground for acting all hurt and misunderstood.


Oh, but it was what I meant. It was y'all that took it wrong. I'm hardly hurt that the roosters are fighting, it's what they do. Why should I be hurt when creatures act according to their nature? 

Of course it says something different when even you quote selectively. There's a link to an article, then a sentence enumerating my view of the article. I don't know how much more simple it can get. The results are not at all surprising. Not at all. Context.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon your attempts to back down from an obvious slur are transparent, and your further attempts to shift blame to others are even worse.

The thread was started to disparage Randy Oliver. Luckily, most people see sense and it didn't work out for you.

Lets try this. Imagine I started a thread with a post that went -



http://parkerfarms.biz/

Alarmist, ignorant, Solomon Parker not helping as usual.



Would you consider that an attempt to disparage you? Would you cry abuse? 

Don't kid me you wouldn't I am not that gullible, and nor is anyone else.


----------



## Solomon Parker

I wrote that website, the whole thing. So if I had named Brian Walsh, the senior editor at Time, you might have a point. But I didn't did I? No, I called Brian Walsh's article ignorant and alarmist, which it is, and Randy Oliver was not helping, which he's not.

Transparency, I do not think it means what you think it means. :lpf:


----------



## jim lyon

I'm not surprised at the tone of this thread when the op amounts to little more than an insult. It dosent matter whether you agree with Randy's point of view or not its about whether you choose to have constructive, intelligent dialog about issues. Folks can judge for themselves.


----------



## Cloverdale

David LaFerney said:


> Have they changed the article since you read it? Because that's not even close to how it came across to me.
> 
> You aren't covering yourself in glory when you call Randy Oliver (or anyone else for that matter) names. If he's ignorant then I must be too ignorant to understand that he is. Randy Oliver is one of the few people who does beekeeping experiments and shares his work, and does it in a way which acknowledges and tries to minimize confirmation bias. Most of what is available is 100 percent anecdotal evidence, and not even trying to be scientific. I think we all owe a little bit of respect to anyone who does that.


I agree with you David...even if you have an opinion, keep the nastiness to yourself..I did the Bee Wellness Workshop with Randy Oliver (and Sam Comfort) in Kingston NY. He is passionate about honey bees and shared much of his knowledge; he is a bee lover. I really take news and quotes with a grain of salt....


----------



## Barry

Hey Sol, with just a little extra effort, you could have done this:

"http://science.time.com/2013/08/09/t...ene/?hpt=hp_t3

Bryan Walsh, who wrote he article, is alarmist, ignorant, and Randy Oliver's quote didn't help as well."

The tone of this thread would have gone in a very different direction.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> No, I called Brian Walsh's article ignorant and alarmist,


That's not how it was constructed to look, sorry, and I do not believe your denials.

After watching the thread for a long time and seeing only one person on Beesource has bought into your abuse and the rest are disgusted, you have decided, too late, to try to backtrack.

However the intent was obvious and Jim Lyons assessment is correct.

I have seen you cry abuse over much less Solomon. MUCH less. The fine distinctions you use to try to shift blame, are too fine. They do not change the obvious intent.

In addition, the more you continue to refresh the thread and drag it to the top, the more people will see it, and how bad you look.


----------



## WLC

"Bryan Walsh, who wrote he article, is alarmist, ignorant, and Randy Oliver's quote didn't help as well."
The tone of this thread would have gone in a very different direction."

Not really Barry, the way that paragraph was written, I probably would have gotten around to saying that it made Randy look like 'a lying shill' anyhow.

It's critical. Not abusive.

"..only one person on Beesource has bought into your abuse and the rest are disgusted.."
Oldtimer, can the righteous indignation routine already. It's pointless.


----------



## Oldtimer

Tell ya what WLC, you and Solomon quit with the insults and abuse that you are STILL repeating, and I'll quit with the indignation.

The more this goes on, the worse you both look. Your call.....


----------



## DanielD

Actually, and I hope I am not tromped on over this, but this whole thread sounds like children. You all seem to be doing the same thing to each other. 

I will stop reading this thread at this point.


----------



## WLC

There's a difference between being objective about how someone was portrayed in an article and being insulting/abusive.

You're just steamed that I provided you with an example of a lie regarding neonics, that Randy put in print, that you yourself requested.

Tough cookies.

U.S. beekeepers are filing suit against the EPA to protect their way of life, and the rest of you are idolizing a Bayer sellout.

Who looks bad? Not me Oldtimer.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> You're just steamed that I provided you with an example of a lie regarding neonics, that Randy put in print.


You have not supplied any such example.


----------



## WLC

I most certainly have. The last time I had to deal with someone saying that there's no evidence that neonics cause colony losses, I provided the German study as an example. I keep having to repeat that exercise since the 'lie' keeps getting repeated.

That's Randy's doings. It needs to stop.

Stop trolling Oldtimer. It's getting old.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> I most certainly have.


You most certainly have not.

If you think he has lied, quote it and reference it.

If you cannot, withdraw the allegation.


----------



## WLC

Stop trolling.

Already done many posts ago.


----------



## Oldtimer

You have not done it many posts ago.

Your post sounds like avoidance to me, the beginning of backtracking.

I repeat. -

If you think he has lied, quote it and reference it.

If you cannot, withdraw the allegation.


----------



## WLC

Stop trolling me Oldtimer.

It's against the rules.

You look really bad especially since you've been doing it the entire thread.


----------



## Oldtimer

More avoidance.

You accuse him of lying, but are clearly unable to quote and reference it. If this lie actually existed, you would not miss the chance to reference it I am sure.

Be careful that it is not you who is the liar. And the troll.


----------



## WLC

*Stop Trolling.*


----------



## Oldtimer

Talking to yourself?

Spending pages of accusing somebody of lying, but refusing to reference the lie because it doesn't exist, is trolling.

You can end this any time you like. If a lie has been told, quote and reference it.

If you cannot, withdraw and apologise.

And out of curiosity, how old are you?


----------



## libhart

WLC said:


> I provided the German study as an example.


I used the search tool here to search for "German study" and didn't come up w/anything other than the report on other arthropods being able to contract and spread DWV.

Can you please post that link again?


----------



## BigDawg

I think Randy makes some interesting points at his website and I like his perspective on some issues. However, he was practically gushing about sitting next to the President of Bayer at the recent pollinator summit going on about how the Bayer pres assured him that they would never do anything to harm the bees.....

Puhleaze.

There's 2 BILLION+ dollars a year in neonics sales on the line and Bayer and the rest of the neonics crew aren't just going to walk away from that gravy train. Monsanto and others have a long, and well-documented history of lying to the public and govt regulators about the safety of their products. You would indeed have to be pretty naive to think that they couldn't be lying about neonics too. I'm not saying they are, but I sure as heck wouldn't take anything the Bayer pres had to say about the subject as absolute truth.....and yet apparently Randy does.....


----------



## Oldtimer

BigDawg said:


> .....and yet apparently Randy does.....


Really. 

But what are you saying? That Randy has told a lie on their behalf? If so, please quote it and share the link......

I could have had lunch with someone from Bayer. So what? Randy has not done any of this in secret, it is all out in the open and he is happy to discuss. You said he was "gushing" even, hardly the stuff of anything secret or untoward.

I enjoy Randy's work and just don't like the personal vilification that has been going on, that's all. No need for the language, or the insinuations that turn out to be untrue.

Please don't take this to mean I am defending the ethics of Bayer cos I'm not. The ethics of Bayer have nothing to do with the ethics of Randy. But the ethics of someone who will lie about someone, I would question.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> No, I called Brian Walsh's article ignorant and alarmist, which it is, and Randy Oliver was not helping, which he's not.


Maybe I read your OP too fast or missed the punctuation, but I didn't read it that way. I thought you were being critical of Randy only and not the article.


----------



## sqkcrk

Cloverdale said:


> I agree with you David...even if you have an opinion, keep the nastiness to yourself..I did the Bee Wellness Workshop with Randy Oliver (and Sam Comfort) in Kingston NY. He is passionate about honey bees and shared much of his knowledge; he is a bee lover. I really take news and quotes with a grain of salt....


I wish I could have stuck around for that one. Knowing Sam's experiences somewhat and his stance on beekeeping in general and knowing somewhat where Randy comes from that must have been an interesting session. Were you at the Picnic on Saturday? I had the truck w/ the supers on it.


----------



## WLC

libhart:

Here it is:

http://pub.jki.bund.de/index.php/JKA/article/viewArticle/143

There's more evidence showing that neonics kills colonies out there.

However, I know for a fact that Randy positively hates the following study. He even tried to stop its publication:

http://www.bulletinofinsectology.org/pdfarticles/vol65-2012-099-106lu.pdf

Yup, it's the Lu study from Harvard. It showed that colonies poisoned with neonics show an increased over winter mortality.

Randy has a record of going out of his way to suppress evidence for the impact of neonics on Honeybees.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> libhart:
> 
> Here it is:
> 
> http://pub.jki.bund.de/index.php/JKA/article/viewArticle/143
> 
> There's more evidence showing that neonics kills colonies out there.
> 
> But, it isn't necessary to show that Randy's statement that neonics have never been linked to colony loss is false.


the german study is another well known example of acute exposure to planting dust.

from: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f-colony-collapse-revisited-pesticides/

"As long as I’ve been keeping bees, one of our worst fears has been that we might suffer a serious pesticide kill. Pesticides (especially insecticides) have always been, and will continue to be, a problem for bees and beekeepers."

and http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-extinction-of-the-honey-bee/

"Clearly, planting dust details need to be resolved in order to eliminate situations that result in serious bee kills, which can severely set back colonies and cost commercial beekeepers substantial lost income. In order to do so, the stakeholders (growers, beekeepers, the pesticide companies) and EPA need to cooperate in investigating the factors involved."


----------



## sqkcrk

squarepeg said:


> the german study is another well known example of acute exposure to planting dust.
> 
> from: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f-colony-collapse-revisited-pesticides/
> 
> "As long as I’ve been keeping bees, one of our worst fears has been that we might suffer a serious pesticide kill. Pesticides (especially insecticides) have always been, and will continue to be, a problem for bees and beekeepers."
> 
> and http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-extinction-of-the-honey-bee/
> 
> "Clearly, planting dust details need to be resolved in order to eliminate situations that result in serious bee kills, which can severely set back colonies and cost commercial beekeepers substantial lost income. In order to do so, the stakeholders (growers, beekeepers, the pesticide companies) and EPA need to cooperate in investigating the factors involved."


Yeah, don'tcha just hate it when Randy backup what some folks say about him?


----------



## WLC

Gents:

That was from a time when Randy was still a 'Jedi'.

He has since been seduced by the dark side. He's 'Darth Randy' now.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Gents:
> 
> That was from a time when Randy was still a 'Jedi'.
> 
> He has since been seduced by the dark side. He's 'Darth Randy' now.


......and wlc is a card carrying anti-neonic working tirelessly on his agenda to get them banned in the u.s., spending time and treasure in support of like minded politicians, and throwing anyone presenting facts that counter the cause under the bus.


----------



## WLC

I'm pro-regulation, anti-pollution. Not anti-neonic.

I'm simply pointing out that your hero has himself taken a side.

So, while beekeepers like Bret Adee and the NPDF are sueing the EPA to enforce its own regulations, Randy is hanging with Monsanto and Bayer.

He's not just collaborating. He actually tried to suppress the study from the Harvard School of Public Health.

That's not something that a beekeeper/blogger should be doing.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> I'm pro-regulation, anti-pollution. Not anti-neonic.
> 
> I'm simply pointing out that your hero has himself taken a side.
> 
> So, while beekeepers like Bret Adee and the NPDF are sueing the EPA to enforce its own regulations, Randy is hanging with Monsanto and Bayer.
> 
> He's not just collaborating. He actually tried to suppress the study from the Harvard School of Public Health.
> 
> That's not something that a beekeeper/blogger should be doing.


call me naïve, but the only side i sense randy is taking is the getting to the truth.

hanging with, or foot in the door and strongly advocating for beekeepers?

hard not agree with randy's criticisms of the harvard study don't ya think?

http://scientificbeekeeping.com/the-harvard-study-on-neonicotinoids-and-ccd/

oh well, it's been fun wlc, but imo you have left the realm of objective reality and are merely engaging in pesticide politics and spin.

i have honey supers to extract.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC could you show me where Randy tried to stop publication of that study? Not saying you are being untruthful, just would like to see evidence.

The other thing, the study in question, if that is what you base your ideas on, it would explain a lot. The study has serious flaws and has been pretty much debunked. I also happen to know that you are already aware of this. Check some of Deknows comments.

http://www.beesource.com/forums/showthread.php?285721-CCD-Research




WLC said:


> I'm pro-regulation, anti-pollution. *Not anti-neonic*.


Not anti neonic. LOL 

And of course, never contradict yourself and never tell a lie.


----------



## WLC

Perhaps pro-pollinator is more accurate. 

Didn't you read the Boston Globe article on the Lu study?

Randy was mentioned, although not by name.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine...se-disorder/nXvIA5I6IcxFRxEOc8tpFI/story.html

"One California beekeeper was especially strident, going to great lengths to try to discredit their study."

What a card! He's an ace alright.

As for debunked? Nope, not by the Bulletin of Insectology.

Science has it's own peer review system.

Randy, Dean, etc., weren't part of that.


----------



## Oldtimer

You forgot to show me the part where you say Randy tried to stop the study being published. Where you telling the truth?

Criticising it is a different thing from trying to stop it getting published, could you be confused?

It matters not if Dean was not "part of that", he clearly showed where the study has gone wrong.


----------



## WLC

Trolling yet again?

Randy contacted the Bulletin of Insectology, among other things. They gave him the 'brushoff' and told him to write a letter (but they don't have a letters section) LOL.

This is before the study was published by the way.

If Randy was an actual scientist, that would be misconduct.

But since he's just a beekeeper/blogger... Heh, heh. ROTFLO


----------



## squarepeg

randy's take on the time article, from bee-l:

"Yes, the article disappointed me. I was interviewed by the author (a senior editor) for nearly an hour, an stressed the point that I hoped that he could be the one who could finally write an objective practical article that went beyond parroting popular fears. He was given the actual facts about bees hardly being in danger of extinction, the vast differences between the issues facing hobbyists vs. commercial beekeepers, etc. In reading the final product, I can see that he followed the usual media method of thinking that in order to produce a "balanced" article that one must give credence to each and every extreme or misinformed view, rather than making the effort to truly investigate a subject deeply and come up with an independent accurate assessment."


----------



## deknow

Oldtimer said:


> You forgot to show me the part where you say Randy tried to stop the study being published.


...not to mention that the Harvard press office put out a release making false claims about the study (to make the symptoms sound more like CCD than they actually were) well before publication....and that Harvard released the study before it was published.

...also the Harvard Crimson "article" about the study....it was the press release verbatim (with the information that identifies it as a press release omitted). If the instutuion in question doesn't play by the rules, why should Randy? My initial critique was based on hearing Dr. Lu present the study to beekeepers...the well respected bee researcher sitting next to me was equally appalled by what was presented as "fact" and "proven". All of this is a disservice to anyone seeking Truth.

I appreciate the standpoint that one should let the system of science work the way it's "supposed to"...although I don't agree with it. Any second year beekeeper looking at the management report would conclude that something was seriously wrong, either with the bees or with what was reported. Such obvious (and fundimental problems) cannot be overlooked, even before publication.

deknow


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Randy contacted the Bulletin of Insectology, among other things. They gave him the 'brushoff' and told him to write a letter (but they don't have a letters section) LOL.


If Randy's experience was like mine, it was Dr. Lu who wanted questions submitted to the journal's letters section...which doesn't exist.



> This is before the study was published by the way.


Was it before Harvard released/published the study? I know in my case it wasn't.



> If Randy was an actual scientist, that would be misconduct.
> 
> But since he's just a beekeeper/blogger... Heh, heh. ROTFLO


One of my researcher friends is fond of saying (about data that other researchers hint at but don't publish), "Secret data doesn't exist". I'll add that "secret scientists don't even have the credibility of a blogger."

deknow


----------



## WLC

Yeah Dean, but we know the score.

Alex Lu won bigtime, especially since that glowing Boston Globe article.

As for the losers... :doh:

Relegated to the margins of beespace.

We now know that neonics can increase colony winter mortality thanks to the Harvard study.

What was the contribution from your side of the issue?

That p. 30 quote in the TIME article?


----------



## Barry

I've had enough of all the character attacks. If you want to be taken as a serious contributor to these threads, you will have to act like a mature person and leave the "funny" name calling out. I'm addressing this to you, WLC.


----------



## WLC

Usually, you simply delete the entire post.

Nice to see you editing specific content.


----------



## deknow

"Victor" is a funny name 

I'm not sure what you think was "won". The quality of the research and the paper is what it is, regardless of if the Globe or the masses that want an easy answer are happy and ignorant.

deknow


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Usually, you simply delete the entire post.
> 
> Nice to see you editing specific content.


You're right, I shouldn't be doing the work for you.


----------



## deknow

WLC, can you kindly point me to some kind of explanation of what constitutes "scientific misconduct"? I think your accusations are baseless.

deknow


----------



## rhaldridge

deknow said:


> One of my researcher friends is fond of saying (about data that other researchers hint at but don't publish), "Secret data doesn't exist". I'll add that "secret scientists don't even have the credibility of a blogger."
> 
> deknow


Before I consigned all his posts to the round file, I noticed that most of his arguments appeared in the form of a common logical fallacy-- Appeal to Authority. Since this is an authority he's unwilling to substantiate in any way, I stopped paying attention.

This is one of those threads where it's hard to know who to root for. I only have 2 people in the forum on ignore, but some of the later pages in this thread are almost completely grayed out.


----------



## challenger

JMOHO- Mr. Oliver takes a lot of heat for being objective. Nearly everything I've read from him from a research standpoint sites data/study sources.
The garbage in the Times article should not warrant the interest of any beekeeper. It is not an article-it is an editorial. The author never sites any scientific proof for the claims he makes and it is very clear he is writing a severely slanted op/Ed page. He has an agenda or 20. Selling print and making people think a certain way. Time subscribers believe that what they read in this rag is Gospel. These are, "progressive & independent thinkers". Really? These are people that would follow the leader over a cliff.
How can anyone read this junk without seeing what it really is? It is a self serving bunch of unsupported opinion designed to line pockets and make people, "experts" about bees and how the human race is trampling yet another innocent species of animal.
I say you could take the brains of the author AND anyone that believes the garbage that has his name attached to it, drop all these brains in a gnat's butt and it would make the same sound as dropping a pea into a shoe box.
Time magazine-made in china.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> The tone of this thread would have gone in a very different direction.


Yes, I make threads contentious. This is all my fault. [Insert appropriate smiley here]




sqkcrk said:


> I thought you were being critical of Randy only and not the article.


Interpretations are really not my problem. I've enjoyed Randy's material in public many times, and you've been part of those conversations. But I'm 100% consistent in my view that he says things which don't do beekeepers any favors. I've clarified my position, that's really all I can do. No use beating a dead horse as you said.




WLC said:


> I'm pro-regulation, anti-pollution. Not anti-neonic.


Finally something we can agree on!


----------



## Solomon Parker

rhaldridge said:


> but some of the later pages in this thread are almost completely grayed out.


I think we have some things in common here.


----------



## WLC

Dean:

Here's my main thrust:

The same individuals keep saying publicly that there's no evidence for neonics impacting Honeybee colonies/health.

There is more than enough evidence to show that's not true.

There's also a pattern of suppressing that information and providing misinformation by someone who also has ties to the pesticide industry.

I've seen that in other recent articles, and yet again in the current TIME issue.


It needs to be challenged.

Or, perhaps you would prefer my silence?


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Dean:
> 
> Here's my main thrust:
> 
> The same individuals keep saying publicly that there's no evidence for neonics impacting Honeybee colonies/health.


No, you are supporting the (not helpful) contingent that adds confirmed acute pesticide kills and unexplained hive collapse together, and magically claims that all the deaths are due to pesticides, and that they are all CCD. 

I've got a degree in music, and I can see the flaw (and deceit) in that equation.

...



> Or, perhaps you would prefer my silence?


IMHO, your silence would be much better informed than your statements. I expect that you are smart enough that it is by choice.

deknow


----------



## WLC

Smug. But, what I expected.

They banned neonic maize seeds in Italy, and beekeepers reported that their colony losses had a large, subsequent drop. Nothing in many cases.

An Italian Veterinarian's diagnoses of pesticide poisoning was spot on.

Yes, it can be that simple.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> Yes, I make threads contentious. This is all my fault. [Insert appropriate smiley here]


There is no appropriate smiley. You're communicating a thought/feeling using the written word. It's the author's responsibility to use words, punctuation, grammar, to ensure it is understood. It's not all your fault, but you do share the responsibility. You could have stepped in very yearly and corrected any misunderstanding as well. Why wait till 93 posts later?

"Do you know haw hard it is to sit back and watch this convo without clearing my name? But I thought I'd give the usual suspects the opportunity to dig their holes, to misquote and grandstand."


----------



## deknow

WLC said:


> Smug. But, what I expected.


You have been "smugly" accusing others of scientific misconduct. Can you please reference any document that supports your claim and/or lists what violations constitute such misconduct...and by whom?

Or are we supposed to take your anonymous word for it? What scientific principle would support such an assumption?

deknow


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Here's my main thrust:
> 
> The same individuals keep saying publicly that there's no evidence for neonics impacting Honeybee colonies/health.
> 
> There is more than enough evidence to show that's not true.


I haven't read where anyone states this. "These" people continue to say that the evidence to date does not conclusively draw the conclusions you and others come to. There are still too many inconsistencies to lump it all together. Neonics impact honeybees. Virtually everyone agrees with this statement. The debate is to what extent.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Barry said:


> Why wait till 93 posts later?


I was being serious. You could just believe what I say. It would make things a whole lot easier. What good does clearing my name do? Seriously, it hasn't done a darn thing! Oldtimer would rather tell me what I'm thinking than ask me. This is not new stuff.

I do make threads contentious. I've already pointed this out and admitted it on a number of occasions. Why would I now deny it? Oldtimer would roast me. I guess I just expect everybody to read what's on the page, and it seems to be beyond a lot of people's capability.



Breaking Bad said:


> "What's in the bag?"
> "Half a million in cash."
> "Ha ha."


There seems to be precious little ability in this culture to actually identify when someone is telling the truth. Someone as open and honest as me is either is either a sociopath or must be being sarcastic. I tell you guys about every hive I lose, every intricate detail of how I keep bees, yet I still keep getting accusations that I'm lying or hiding something, another one just the other day. It's amazing really. It's just not possible I'm that honest, right?


----------



## WLC

Dean:

If you were a player, you'd know that have to go through certain channels if you're going to criticize a study. Especially pre-publication because you could influence the review process.

But, neither myself, nor anyone here fits that description. We had no horse in that race.


----------



## deknow

So what you are saying that if I was in the club I'd know the backroom rules?

BS!

Scientific misconduct is a very well defined offiense, and you can't produce a single document that supports your claim that critiquing a study before publication (especially when the author and institution have pre-published the study and sending out press releases) is any basis for misconduct.

I think you are full of it.

deknow



WLC said:


> Dean:
> 
> If you were a player, you'd know that have to go through certain channels if you're going to criticize a study. Especially pre-publication because you could influence the review process.
> 
> But, neither myself, nor anyone here fits that description. We had no horse in that race.


----------



## WLC

Barry:

The bone of contention was not only the statement quoted in the article, but also a previous statement that there was no evidence for neonics causing colony loses. The Lu study was one, and the person in question tried to torpedo it.

You can't say there's no evidence when the study you tried to stop from being published was in fact published and did show that neonics can cause colony losses.

That's just hypocritical and self serving.

Look at the title of the Lu study, and you'll see why the quote 'lit my fuse'.


----------



## Cloverdale

sqkcrk said:


> I wish I could have stuck around for that one. Knowing Sam's experiences somewhat and his stance on beekeeping in general and knowing somewhat where Randy comes from that must have been an interesting session. Were you at the Picnic on Saturday? I had the truck w/ the supers on it.


No, I did not attend the picnic even though I am a member of Catskill Bee Club...it looked like a lot of fun and I wish I had gone so I could have met more people and Beekeepers to talk with. The Bee wellness workshop was great! My brain can only take in so much info.  Randy is intense, so we butted heads a little (maybe two similar personalities if you know what I mean) but learned much! Also met Joe Hewitt who has been beekeeping for 60 years, he's like a walking encyclopedia on beekeeping. I should carry a tape recorder.


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> I was being serious. You could just believe what I say. It would make things a whole lot easier.


I try Sol. Sorry I misunderstood you, again. I was thrown by the smiley comment that followed "it's all my fault."


----------



## BigDawg

I think Randy is very knowledgeable and he does make good points about the need for solid science in order to get to the bottom of CCD.

However, in reading through his website he comes across as someone who is WAY too cozy with industry for me to take what he says at face value without a deeper and critical analysis of the data and facts that he presents.

For one, we know he is being paid by the neonics industry. Two (and not coincidentally IMHO) he tends to put most of what he says in a pron-neonics industry light, for example suggesting that they should be called "Plant Protection Products companies" instead of pesticide companies. Manipulating the language/discourse to change public perception is a tried and true industry tactic that amazingly enough does fool some people. For example, timber companies, tired of taking the heat for clearcut logging, started referring to them not as clearcuts, but as "temporary meadows." Seriously.

As many who have taken a similar path discover, if you start publicly taking a pro-industry position on a controversial topic you will be showered with attention, money, and access. The book "The Betrayal of Science and Reason" does an excellent job of detailing how "scientists" are recruited and then kept on message through a variety of perks and ego-stroking. Randy seems to have succumbed to this himself:

"Over the course of the day-long tour and dinner, all parties involved—the Bayer scientists, the government regulators, the seed companies, the growers, and the beekeepers—had ample opportunity to openly discuss issues and solutions. *We were able to speak candidly with a number of Bayer environmental scientists from Germany, Canada, and the U.S., who all confirmed the high interest that Bayer has in developing bee-friendly products.* *Over dinner, I asked Dr. Christian Maus (Global Pollinator Safety Manager for Bayer CropScience) whether Bayer was concerned about finding out something negative when they run a new trial. He replied that if indeed there was a problem with one of their products, Bayer would want to be the first to know of it!*

Well golly gee, if Bayer's scientists (gotta love the job title "Global Pollinator Safety Manager"  )say that they really want to know if their products are harming bees, well that's that, right? I mean, they wouldn't LIE in order to protect a $2-$3 BILLION dollar a year product line....right? 

If they were/are really so concerned about pollinator safety as related to neonics, why did they fight the EU ban so instensly even threatening to personally sue scientists and legislators who supported the ban? Why not consent to at least a temporary regional ban in order to look at how bees do when neonics are not used? Where are THEIR long-term field studies on the sub-lethal impacts of honeybees from long-term exposure to neonics? Why are they instead spending a million dollars on a study that exposed honeybees to neonics for TWO WEEKS, and then have the gall to claim that as proof that neonics don't harm bees?

The bottom line is this: if you're prepared to tow the industry line, you will be rewarded for your efforts. When looking at the information coming from someone who is directly benefiting from industry, understand that their views are almost certainly biased.


----------



## deknow

Im hardly known as someone that toes the industry line.....I just read source material carefully. Remember, Im the one with the mass market book on treatment free beekeeping....withput feeding. I hardly get "rewarded by the industry". Maybe im the cop at the Dead show wearing a tie dye. Anyone know where I can get some acid?

Deknow


----------



## WLC

I've noticed that Randy is described as an independent CCD researcher.
I'm not sure what that's about.


----------



## Hazel-Rah

This entire thread is what is wrong with the beekeeping industry, big-ag, biotech, society at large etc... The in-groups will always devour each other over petty insults on grandstanding ideals, rather then cooperate for radical solutions. 

Did TIME publish a conservative, patsy article on the plight of bees in our age a industrial agriculture? SHOCKING... What did you expect? A condemnation of all thing consumer culture, petro-chemical, biotech and industrialized? TIME is catering to corporate publishers and a pseudo-bourgeoisie demographic that cannot and WILL NOT handle such an affront to their values and lifestyle.

And let's be serious here, it's TRUE... Neonics ARE NOT the silver bullet that is going to lead us happily to bountiful and vital honeybee populations. We are talking about full-scale industry reform... We are talking about forage, genetics, transportation, pesticides, fungicides, monocrops, GMOs, and the list goes on. So should neonics be banned? YES! Shouldn't all patented products being liberally applied to our natural world be subjected to extensive, third-party, sub-lethal and combined-load testing????

So crucifying one person, over their opinion of one aspect of the towering load of problems faced by honeybees/pollinators, seems near cannibalistic. Some activist groups would even consider it proof of a saboteur. Thinking that a TIME article is going to radically change anything, anywhere is almost as naive as the Amerikan/biotech slogan that, 'we can manage, manipulate and commodify our way our of any problem.

Here is that scientific article that some mentioned earlier, quite a good read - but not in support of the neonic-silver bullet theory. 

How about instead of acting like a bunch of clucking barnyard hens, you take the time you wasted on this thread and post some useful advice in some other forum. That way as a community of beekeepers, we can mover forward with solutions. If you are worried that some people are not as anti-Bayer, or treatment-free or whatever... start an 'affinity group', learn non-violent communication and then organize your solutions.


----------



## WLC

BigDawg:

You are right on target with your post. It's not only the corporate corruption of science, but of beekeeping as well.

Just a quote or two:

"Eventually it all became unsustainable. In 2013, after decades in the business, Doan gave up."

"He has testified before Congress about the dangers that chemicals pose and is involved in a lawsuit with other beekeepers and with green groups that call on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend a pair of pesticides in the neonicotinoid class."

I'd say that they make a good contrast with the quotes you've chosen.


----------



## sqkcrk

A friend of mine brought her copy of TIME to Church today for me to have. Boy has TIME gotten thin.

I read the article. I would have edited some of the wording (Western honeybee?), blueberry bogs? Blueberries aren't grown in bogs. Cranberries aren't grown in bogs anymore either.

Mostly, I guess it was pretty good. I don't see what the big deal is. Especially why Randy Oliver was picked out for the biggest load of critisism. He was quoted twice for heaven's sake. 

To misquote Einstein and then say that most folks say he didn't say that? What is that all about?

Anyway, I think Solomon's entitled to his criticism and comments on the article and Randy. I simply disagree.

WLC seems to have a Randy Oliver Vendetta. I don't know what else to say about that.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> http://science.time.com/2013/08/09/the-trouble-with-beekeeping-in-the-anthropocene/?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


Was Jim Doan helping? Was Jeff Pettis or Jim Frazier? Randy was voicing an opinion about how things could go. What's wrong w/ that?


----------



## Oldtimer

challenger said:


> How can anyone read this junk without seeing what it really is?...........
> I say you could take the brains of the author AND anyone that believes the garbage that has his name attached to it, *drop all these brains in a gnat's butt *and it would make the same sound as dropping a pea into a shoe box.


LOL! The best post in the thread.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

I read this thread and ask myself if we are not going to believe Randy about his research than whom are beekeepers supposed to believe? I don't have the training or interest to do the research myself and get out of feeling guilty about that by sending Randy small donations periodically to support his work. Who is supposed to be doing the research and analyzing the reports? Everyone for themselves? I am very grateful to Randy for his work, publications, web site and public engagement.


----------



## Oldtimer

True Andrew. One positive thing this thread has exposed is that all on Beesource except a tiny minority are right with you in that opinion.


----------



## WLC

Some of us have our own degrees and do our own research.

I prefer to cut out the middle man.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Dean:
> 
> Here's my main thrust:
> 
> The same individuals keep saying publicly that there's no evidence for neonics impacting Honeybee colonies/health.


Who are these individuals? 

Since you have your own degree and do your own research and all, please supply quote and link proving your statement.


----------



## jim lyon

WLC said:


> Some of us have our own degrees and do our own research.
> 
> I prefer to cut out the middle man.


You want to be taken seriously? Give us your resume, document your research. Until then you are just an anonymous naysayer.


----------



## WLC

I don't take your demand seriously.

Why should I?

Because I pointed out that Randy has a serious conflict of interest that disqualifies him from his self appointed role?

How many times have I provided you with relevant research that you weren't willing to provide yourself?

I've had to do it here on this thread more than once for those far less worthy than you are.

Stop depending on other people for your information Jim. That's what you haven't figured out.


----------



## Oldtimer

It's not that.

It's that when you make these accusations against people you HAVE, if asked, to supply the evidence.

As you never do, and in fact will argue to the extreme to avoid doing so, I have concluded you are not being truthful.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Some of us have our own degrees and do our own research.


But not any you can tell us about for security reasons. Right?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Well, everyone else can find the information and links I've provided to back up my position.


Trouble is, nobody can cos they don't exist.

Myself and others have provided quotes and links that prove you wrong, and your response is to well, make no response. You just keep arguing the point even when the evidence is staring you in the face.

There is no point saying you won't supply the links because you already did, when you haven't.


----------



## WLC

MA Biology, PD Administration.

But so what?

I don't have a conflict with Bayer, Monsanto, etc. .

What kind of a beekeeper gets their information concerning the impact of neonics from Bayer?

http://scholar.google.com/

Use Google Scholar to find current papers of interest. Select your search term, the date range, etc. and you're off.

Now you're free to do your own searches.

Happy now?


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> Was Jim Doan helping? Was Tim Pettis or Jim Frazier? Randy was voicing an opinion about how things could go. What's wrong w/ that?


I'm not familiar with those guys.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> MA Biology, PD Administration.
> 
> But so what?


So what is right since you can't substantiate your assertion because of your predicament.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not familiar with those guys.


Familiarize yourself. Websearch them. Jim Doan is a cousin of David Hackenberg, CCD Poster Child.


----------



## beemandan

Idiot.....not calling anyone a name....just being contentious


----------



## David LaFerney




----------



## deknow

sqkcrk said:


> Familiarize yourself. Websearch them. Jim Doan is a cousin of David Hackenberg, CCD Poster Child.


Hey Mark, should we assume that Tim Pettis is Jeff Pettis' cousin? 

deknow


----------



## Ben Franklin

After more then 40 years as a beekeeper and one who observe nature, I totally disagree with the article.
1) I have found feral hives to out last many of the Controlled hives. 2) The feedlot idea is just like farmers pushing to grow more on less acreage, (GMO seeds). This too will come back to bite man in the Ass. 3) More and more people are looking for natural food sources, i,e free range beef, eggs ect.

If I am lucky enough to live to see 80, I dought I will be eating my words.


----------



## Hazel-Rah

David LaFerney - you got with the icon! This thread is like a car accident - a feeding frenzy over the wet supers... everybody goin' crazy, stingin each other, the yellow-jackets swooping in on the unsuspecting and preoccupied. I know I should stay away after my previous comments, but I can't. This conversation is just too funny, pretty embarrassing though.


----------



## Roland

WOW, it is a sad state of affairs when the leading practical bee researcher in the country is not a Government employee, out performs all Government employees(with the exception of a man from U of Neb.), and gets bashed because he is interviewed and quoted in an article. I am afraid that "Science" has gravely tarnished it's image by failing to stay objective and honest. One mechanism is to provide footnotes and links to support all information. Without them, you have no foundation.

Having experienced TRUE CCD, meeting ALL of the requisite symptoms, I can most assuredly say that the main culprit is NOT Neonics. They express some, but not all of the symptoms. Hackenburg proved it was a pathogen by irradiating hives. Get over it. Neonics kill, but they are NOT the source of CCD. 

If you think I am wrong, find me an example of Koch's postulate with neonics.

And that degree on the wall is just a piece of paper. I have one, does not mean I can find my way out of a paper bag, but it may mean I can smell who's paper was made by Charmin. 

Crazy Roland


----------



## BeeCurious

Roland said:


> Neonics kill, but they are the source of CCD.


I'm assuming that you meant "Neonics kill, but they are NOT the source of CCD."


----------



## BigDawg

I don't think anyone is saying "don't believe Randy Oliver." I know I'm not. But what people ARE saying is that he is being funded by the neonics industry and many of his comments draw a picture of someone who is becoming more and more closely allied with the neonics industry--therefore one has to look at this comments and research through that lens. Remember, for DECADES scientists on the Tobacco Industry's payroll told us that smoking didn't cause cancer and that smoking wasn't addictive, and Monsanto's scientists told us that PCB's and Dioxin were safe (and we all know how that turned out) so, you just have to realize that some scientists are paid to tow/promote the company line.

If you want objectivity, then a good start is to look at research and researchers that are not taking money from the neonics industry. Any professional journal worth reading will require the authors to disclose such funding issues as potential conflicts or interest as money certainly can impact the research methods and conclusions. 

A textbook example of this is the recent Bayer-funded million dollar Scott-Dupree study that proclaimed "Exposure to clothianidin seed treated canola has no long-term impact on honey bees" when clearly a more accurate title would have been: "Exposure to clothianidin seed treated canola *for two weeks* has no long-term impact on honey bees." Of course the latter title probably wasn't exactly what Bayer had in mind, so, when it comes to funding research you really do get what you pay for......



Andrew Dewey said:


> I read this thread and ask myself if we are not going to believe Randy about his research than whom are beekeepers supposed to believe? I don't have the training or interest to do the research myself and get out of feeling guilty about that by sending Randy small donations periodically to support his work. Who is supposed to be doing the research and analyzing the reports? Everyone for themselves? I am very grateful to Randy for his work, publications, web site and public engagement.


----------



## Oldtimer

BigDawg said:


> I don't think anyone is saying "don't believe Randy Oliver." I know I'm not. But what people ARE saying is that he is being funded by the neonics industry and many of his comments draw a picture of someone who is becoming more and more closely allied with the neonics industry--therefore one has to look at this comments and research *through that lens*.


Actually, no. 

To your first point, being you don't think anyone has said don't believe Randy Oliver, Randy has in fact been called a liar. So you either haven't read the thread, or your particular "lens" has a strong bias. Or more likely a blind spot.

To your second point, only someone with a heavy bias or looking through a particular "lens", would say Randy is becoming closely allied with the neonics industry. This "lens" you think you should look through, is in fact, bias. Throw it away and read with an open mind. You will find Randy is very even handed in his assessments. Some people would be satisfied with nothing less than him being a frothing at the mouth, "neonics cause everything" extremist. He isn't one, he is more objective than that, and he will never satisfy those kind of people so he is always going to get some flack.

But the language that has been used is offensive, and the false accusations that never get substantiated appalling.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> What good does clearing my name do? Seriously, it hasn't done a darn thing! Oldtimer would rather tell me what I'm thinking than ask me.





David LaFerney said:


> If what you said in post #1 was not what you meant, and you waited ninety some comments later while you sat back and watched the sparks fly to clarify then *you have little ground for acting all hurt and misunderstood*.


...


----------



## BigDawg

I'm glad Randy isn't a "neonics cause everything extremist." I don't agree with that position either. However, I still think that when people start using corporate jargon like "crop protection company" instead of "pesticide company" to me they're not really being very objective at all and it makes me look at what they are saying with much more skepticism.While I wouldn't call him a liar, I certainly don't consider him completely unbiased and/or objective either. Frankly, that's one of the huge problems with research these days--there's sooooo much money on the line relative to the outcomes that there is a whole ton of behind-the-scenes maneuvering and positioning in an effort at spin control. 

I haven't bothered to look, has any of Randy's work been published in peer-reviewed journals?



Oldtimer said:


> To your second point, only someone with a heavy bias or looking through a particular "lens", would say Randy is becoming closely allied with the neonics industry. This "lens" you think you should look through, is in fact, bias. Throw it away and read with an open mind. You will find Randy is very even handed in his assessments. Some people would be satisfied with nothing less than him being a frothing at the mouth, "neonics cause everything" extremist. He isn't one, he is more objective than that, and he will never satisfy those kind of people so he is always going to get some flack.


----------



## Oldtimer

I still think you should discard that lens you think you should look through though. 

When someone says they need to interpret something through a certain "lens", what they really mean whether intentionally or not, is bias.

And what you have seen on the thread, and what you have missed, would be consistent with that.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> For one, we know he is being paid by the neonics industry.


Paid by what neonic company? Randy does some independent contractor work for Monsanto, but Monsanto is not "the neonics industry".


----------



## Oldtimer

Glad you pointed that out BlueDiamond, I am so tired of hearing that ill informed statement. 

The misinformation and prejudice in this thread is surpassed only by the inability of the perpetrators to come clean.


----------



## Andrew Dewey

Randy has been vocal talking about planter dust and how problems should be solved ASAP. (my reading is like yesterday)


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> Hey Mark, should we assume that Tim Pettis is Jeff Pettis' cousin?
> 
> deknow


Yeah, I corrected that. Thanks.


----------



## BeeCurious

Solomon Parker said:


> Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


Post your opinion over on Bee-L where Oliver can respond...


----------



## WLC

Andrew:

Read Randy's 'What happened to the bees this spring 2013', he said in the facts/myths table that there's no evidence for neonics causing colony loss. Taken together with his vocal opposition to the Lu study, and his collaboration with Bayer (as BigDawg illustrated) all while the NPDF and other beekeeping groups are suing the EPA over neonics...

..he's out of touch at the very least.

At the very worst, well I've been over that.

I'm not going to disagree with Sol's statement that Randy's contribution to the TIME article was 'useless'.


----------



## BeeCurious

WLC said:


> I'm not going to disagree with Sol's statement that Randy's contribution to the TIME article was 'useless'.



You should also make a visit to Bee-L to address Oliver directly.


----------



## WLC

Randy knows how to contact me. 

I'd be happy to give him some advice.


----------



## BeeCurious

WLC said:


> Randy knows how to contact me.
> 
> I'd be happy to give him some advice.


If he knew how you are talking about him he might be interested in contacting you. So, to make yourself happy, go to Bee-L and give Randy Oliver some advice...


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Read Randy's 'What happened to the bees this spring 2013', he said in the facts/myths table that there's no evidence for neonics causing colony loss.


He did not say that so why keep lying?



WLC said:


> Taken together with his vocal opposition to the Lu study, and his collaboration with Bayer (as BigDawg illustrated) ...


As has been explained to you the Lu study has been pretty much debunked.

And as you also saw, BigDawg had his facts wrong.


WLC your arguments are so fallacious I think you are actually a plant by Bayer, a shill. Your purpose is to deliberately try to make neonics bashers look like fools.


----------



## WLC

He already knows how I think Brian Walsh made him look, to some folks.

If you read his first quote in context, you'd swear that he's an insecticide industry spokesman that doesn't think insecticides are a major issue.

That is soooo out of touch with Jim Doan's predicament as described in the preceeding text.

As for his real world antics, he doesn't need to be reminded by me.


----------



## WLC

The Lu study hasn't been debunked by scientists.

Or, do you mean Randy? Heh, heh.


----------



## Oldtimer

No I meant you've had it explained to you right here on Beesource, I provided a link.

But if you are a Bayer shill, I wouldn't expect you to respond to logic, so as to discredit the anti neonics movement.


----------



## WLC

It ain't nothing if it isn't published in a peer reviewed journal. That includes debunking papers and letters.

As for the Bayer shill remark...

I'm in New York, that would be Dow shill, if I were employed by pesticide manufacturers.

I don't have a conflict of interest.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> Read Randy's 'What happened to the bees this spring 2013', he said in the facts/myths table that there's no evidence for neonics causing colony loss.


How about you actually quote him here. Paste, word for word the entire paragraph in quotes so we can all read for ourselves what he ACTUALLY said in its context.

Never mind, I'll do it.

---------
Arguments against neonic seed treatments

The neonicotinoids have been “linked” to increased colony mortality.

Actual facts


In actuality, such a “link” is merely an urban legend, and has never been demonstrated or confirmed in any study. On the other hand, the residues of other classes of pesticides are more suspect for causing increased brood or adult bee mortality[24].

[24] http://www.extension.org/pages/6031...ment-in-colony-collapse-disorder#.Ugja2rxa9pg


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> He already knows how I think Brian Walsh made him look, to some folks.


You know this because you have told him or are you assuming he has heard about what you are writing on beesource.


----------



## WLC

I already have.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ver+bees+spring+2013&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>
Arguments against neonic seed treatments

Actual facts

The neonicotinoids have been “linked” to increased

colony mortality.

In actuality, such a “link” is merely an urban legend,

and has never been demonstrated or confirmed in

any study.<

The Lu study, that Randy 'vociferously' objected to, demonstrated that link.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Randy knows how to contact me.


Why would he if he doesn't know who you are? I don't know this for sure, but I don't think he spends much time reesponding to persons unknown.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> I already have.
> 
> http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ver+bees+spring+2013&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
> >


The document at the link provided by _WLC _is, at best, _incomplete_.  If you want to see the document _as published_ by Randy Oliver, see this link:
http://gallery.mailchimp.com/5fd2b1..._Happened_to_the_Bees_This_Spring2013_opt.pdf

And yes, there are differences between the two. I have to wonder why _WLC _would choose to link to a modified document when the original is so readily available. :no:

Is that the kind of behavior they teach when getting those fancy degrees WLC was boasting about earlier? 

:ws:


----------



## sqkcrk

For "An Informed Discussion of Beekeeping" go to bee-L and look at August 2013 and find "Times Article". That's where you will find out what Randy Oliver thinks about the article. Some of his comments have already been quoted from bee-L here in this Thread.


----------



## Oldtimer

Good. At last WLC has been forced to provide evidence for what he is saying. (Barry had to ask).

Turns out he has not been telling the truth.

He said "he said in the facts/myths table that there's no evidence for neonics causing colony loss".

Whereas the quote he supplied is in reference to *increased* colony mortality.

Only one word but it's a Big difference. Randy also discusses other insecticides and that was the context, what he means is that no study has shown *increased* mortality for neonics. A whole different ball game to the no mortality at all that WLC has been (falsely) saying he said. And if that's what the studies show, then that's what the studies show even if WLC doesn't like it.

And we know this is his intent because in the same article Randy discusses bee losses to neonics. Clearly it is not his belief they cause no losses.

What that means is that all this time WLC has not been telling the truth. I see this type of thing happening constantly in the literature published by extremists and shills, I was reading some earlier today. For some reason it goes with the territory.


----------



## WLC

I think that it's time Randy issued a correction for the 'myth'.

Otherwise, it's simply outrageously self serving to attack a published paper showing the link, and then publishing the 'false' myth statement.

He positively knew about the evidence, but then wrote that statement.


----------



## Oldtimer

Not really. I think it's time you issued a correction for your myth. Randy reported on what the studies found, and he did not run the studies.

If you wanted to include the flawed Lu study, he could have said all the studies except the Lu study. But how bad does something like the Lu study have to be before it is invalidated.


----------



## WLC

The follow up study is on the way:

www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2013/06/22/...honeybee.../story.html

" One California beekeeper was especially strident, going to great lengths to try to discredit their study. "

That's Randy.

I think that we can all read the Boston Globe article on the Lu/Harvard study for ourselves.


----------



## Solomon Parker

BeeCurious said:


> Post your opinion over on Bee-L where Oliver can respond...


All I said was he wasn't helping. It's not exactly an indictment of his character or skills as a beekeeper. If he's sore about it, have him send me an email, I answer emails. I'd be happy to discuss it with him in private.



Solomon Parker said:


> http://science.time.com/2013/08/09/the-trouble-with-beekeeping-in-the-anthropocene/?hpt=hp_t3
> 
> Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual.


Let me further elaborate and provide further context. This was originally posted in the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum where I posted it in hopes that it would be discussed in a treatment-free beekeeping context. I could give a flying rip what conventional and commercial beekeepers think. My criticism such as it is is wholly directed toward the ignorance and alarmist tendencies of the non-beekeeping public at large in relation to beekeeping itself which is so well demonstrated in this article and by its author. Randy Oliver simply isn't helping the ultimate survival of beekeeping when he says things like:


RiodeLobo said:


> "Randy Oliver, a beekeeper and independent researcher, told me that he could see honeybees becoming a feedlot animal like pigs or chickens, bred and kept for one purpose and having their food brought to them, rather than foraging in the semi-wild way they live now."


 because I am a stationary treatment-free beekeeper and have negative views toward what already exists and is already known as feedlot beekeeping. I grew up near one of those feedlots, a stopping off point between almonds and clover. 

I as a treatment-free beekeeper am consistent in my frank disappointment with commercial beekeeping, how it makes possible destructive monoculture, and how in concentrating vast numbers of hives in one area each year it spreads disease like it would never be spread in the wild. I'm extremely disappionted that new beekeepers are sold a bill of goods (also known as a 3# package) from this industry which has an excellent chance of dying before it gets to be a year old, and therefore leaves said beekeeper out a couple hundred bucks and sorely disappointed that their hive died. And they get blamed or blame themselves for being poor beekeepers when in the real world, a hive ought to stay alive by itself, beekeeper or no. 

But this is my view, and were this thread to have stayed where I put it, that context would have remained in place and while most of this nonsense would have still occurred (due to the egos involved (usually directed at me, I enjoy the temporary reprieve though this post will probably bring it to an end)) at least the proper context would have been in place.


----------



## beedeetee

Solomon Parker said:


> But this is my view, and were this thread to have stayed where I put it,


But what does treatment free have to do with pesticides? Or do you just want to discuss it with people that agree with your ideology?


----------



## Oldtimer

It's not really good enough to publish insults and then say, oh well if the other guy is sore he should contact me". If you have been offensive, you put it right. That's what I've noticed in this thread nobody who has engaged in this vilifying behaviour will put it right.

One excuse I've heard is that people should read the link, and then they'll know what you meant (or what you now say you meant). Maybe they should read the link, but fact is many / most people will not click the link, they just see "Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual". And I'm sure you are aware of that.

It is not really acceptable to try to explain away your own behaviour to your audience here Solomon, if you seek justification, put it right with Randy.


----------



## Solomon Parker

beedeetee said:


> But what does treatment free have to do with pesticides?


I'm not arguing about pesticides. I wanted to discuss the article in a treatment-free beekeeping context.




beedeetee said:


> Or do you just want to discuss it with people that agree with your ideology?


I wanted to discuss the article with treatment-free beekeepers.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> If you have been offensive, you put it right.


There's a difference between being offensive and getting offended. There's lots of offended going around.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well, worked out you got a more balanced audience who didn't like the offensive stuff and did a bigger hatchet job on you, than the hatchet job you hoped to do on Randy.

It was deserved to. So as they say, what goes around comes around.


----------



## BigDawg

So, just to be clear, Randy Oliver claims that neonics being linked to increased colony mortality is an "urban myth that has never been demonstrated or confirmed in any study?"

Wow, no wonder the industry has him on the payroll!

There are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of papers published in peer-reviewed journals that discuss the possible relationship between neonics and CCD. It is HARDLY an urban myth!

Is it an urban myth to say that neonics are the cause of CCD, sure, there's not enough data to show that. But to claim that it's a myth that neonics have been linked to CCD is just laughable....




Barry said:


> ---------
> Arguments against neonic seed treatments
> 
> The neonicotinoids have been “linked” to increased colony mortality.
> 
> Actual facts
> 
> 
> In actuality, such a “link” is merely an urban legend, and has never been demonstrated or confirmed in any study. On the other hand, the residues of other classes of pesticides are more suspect for causing increased brood or adult bee mortality[24].
> 
> [24] http://www.extension.org/pages/6031...ment-in-colony-collapse-disorder#.Ugja2rxa9pg


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> There's a difference between being offensive and getting offended. There's lots of offended going around.


We don't know if Randy is offended. All we know is you have been offensive. So don't say he has to come see you about it, doesn't work that way. What's normal in these situations is you, the aggressor, put it right.

Surprised I have to explain standard human decency to a grown man.


----------



## beemandan

Solomon Parker said:


> (due to the egos involved


Clearly a lesson in humility is long overdue for all of us big ego types. Who better to put us in our place than a *self proclaimed* 'treatment free beekeeper of high caliber'?


----------



## Oldtimer

BigDawg said:


> There are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of papers published in peer-reviewed journals that discuss the possible relationship between neonics and CCD. It is HARDLY an urban myth!....


Most of them did things like drop neonictiniod poison on 12 bees in a petri dish.

Then they hoot and holler success cos they damaged the bees.

Those types of studies do not prove neonics cause CCD. Real life doesn't either. Think, Tim Ives.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> did a bigger hatchet job on you, than the hatchet job you hoped to do on Randy.


Say what? :lpf:


----------



## Solomon Parker

beemandan said:


> 'treatment free beekeeper of high caliber'?


I thought of saying "highest caliber" but I remembered Michael Bush and thought I'd go a little more humble. :lpf:


----------



## gmcharlie

Solomon, generally I like ya, and I don't think you intended to start a storm, but you and Mr Bush are nowhere in the same league...... I can't see Michael in something as insane as this thread.. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, but he has never been disrepectful to anyone....... I wish I had his class......


----------



## WLC

BigDawg:

That's not the worst of it.

He's also a regular contributor to ABJ.

What can I say? Is it any wonder that I'm getting hostile responses?

Fortunately, there are organizations representing large numbers of beekeepers suing the EPA.

But you wouldn't know it from reading some of the posts on this thread.

It's an interesting experience being part of the silent (EPA suing) majority when confronted by the vocal minority.


----------



## Solomon Parker

gmcharlie said:


> you and Mr Bush are nowhere in the same league


A survey of Beesource would find plenty of agreement with that statement. Michael is a much more mature man than I, I cannot help laughing at ridiculousness and pointing out stupidity as I see it. Perhaps I will soften as I age, but perhaps not. Again, a quote out of context only says what the quoter wants it to, not what the original speaker said. I wish I had his class too, and I enjoy hanging out with him when I get the opportunity. He is a really nice person. But how nice he is is really irrelevant to the conversation or my caliber as a beekeeper.

I could hardly consider anything I've said in here disrespectful, especially after clarification. I haven't for instance called any person a liar or anything else, merely placing some strong objections to an article and pointing out a certain public personality's willingness to be quoted saying things that don't seem to be very helpful to the future of beekeeping in my view. Again, there's a difference between being offensive and getting offended. I try to avoid offensive, and don't really do offended.


----------



## WLC

Sol, you don't have to explain anything. There are no sacred cows.

Just for the record, I was challenged by Oldtimer to prove that Randy told a lie. So, I did.

That's after I opined on what some people might say in harsher terms than you used after reading his quote in the context of the TIME article (the 'lying shill' remark).


----------



## Solomon Parker

WLC said:


> That's after I opined on what some people might say in harsher terms than you used after reading his quote in the context of the TIME article (the 'lying shill' remark).


Yes, I see that now. I guess he does have a vested interest in making my comment look like something it wasn't so that he can justify that comment. Sorry, I don't really read Oldtimer's posts often or yours to be honest, so I guess I missed that. I was under the impression that name calling was against the rules and that's why I generally don't do it (well, I don't do it because it's not civil, but rules help one remember what proper behavior is). Perhaps I was mistaken.


----------



## WLC

I'm usually the 'minority' opinion here on Beesource.

As one of the 'children of a lesser God', I'm not being protected by the rules, but I am being penalized more often than any other group.

There's no recourse.


----------



## Oldtimer

There's no recourse, oh come on. And Solomon take the glasses off.

That you guys cannot see who has been doing the name calling is astonishing. How about I search the thread for Liar, Ignorant, Lying Shill, Useless, etc, which user names do you think would come up?

Anyhow, it seems you two guys have found each other, so here's to you both. A natural fit.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Are you making fun of my glasses now? If I take them off, I can't see the screen.


----------



## Oldtimer

Had no idea you actually wear glasses. Surely you caught my real meaning?


----------



## Solomon Parker

I think you ought to apologize for making fun of people's glasses. That's really disrespectful and not nice.:no:


----------



## cg3

Well, I don't wear no glasses.


----------



## Lburou

Barry said:


> That's what happens when people choose to live behind the curtain.





_The Wizard of OZ_ said:


> "...Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!.......


As a man who has had the title "Director of Research..." in his job title in the distant past, and at a 1,000 bed teaching hospital, I have to say that Randy Oliver makes sense to me from a scientific perspective. He, like all of us, is not infallible, but certainly creditable.


----------



## WLC

Anyone keep count of how many times Oldtimer implied that I'm a lair?

I think it was well over dozen times.

Fortunately, Barry got tired and posted the offending claim, and BigDawg confirmed.


----------



## WLC

LBurou:

Pretty soon there's going to be 3 kinds of beekeepers in the U.S. : those on the corporate plan, those suing the EPA, and those who live in their own private Idaho. 

I think that Randy is just the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> Anyone keep count of how many times Oldtimer implied that I'm a lair?
> 
> I think it was well over dozen times.
> 
> Fortunately, Barry got tired and posted the offending claim, and BigDawg confirmed.


It is absolutely amazing how you can spin out such a _blatant misrepresentation_ of what actually happened in this thread. 

:ws:

Fortunately, anyone who really cares can go back, read the thread and form their own opinion. I suspect that many who do will come to the conclusion that future _WLC _posts may be tainted with _serious spin_, and are unreliable.


----------



## WLC

I think that they'll realize that it was the relentless trolling by the usual suspects that caused the thread to spin out.

Sol didn't say anything wrong, and neither did I.

Take a bow sidetrack.


----------



## BeeGhost

I like the term "feed lot" and see it all the time here in CA!! In the winter the hives are moved into areas that couldnt support one hive, let alone thousands. I know a couple spots now where bees are being kept by the hundreds and there isnt but maybe a handful of flowers in miles, but I also did see 6 200 gallon totes filled with syrup! That would be considered a feed lot right?? There is no doubt that there is money to be made in Almond pollination with less work than producing striclty honey, even from my small dabble in both. I loaded a hand full of hives into the back of my truck, drove them to the orchard, set them in and didnt have to mess with them for a month (although I did drive down to check on them because it was my first time being a part of almond pollination) and I made enough to buy all my supplies to expand this year..........and then some.

Land is being bought up at a rapid pace here in CA and almond orchards are popping up where row crops once grew, its a lucrative business for the almond growers and bee keepers and until the bottom falls out on almonds, bee keepers are going to do their darndest to make increases in their operation and take care of their bees to please their orchard owning clients. We do indeed for the most part subject our bees to "feed lot" situations to accomplish this task, a lot in part because there are very few places that people can keep hundreds of hives on natural forage here in CA, let alone states that are still under 6' of snow in February!!

Its a sign of the times, if people want to raise bees the "natural way" have at it, but soon viruses and pests will evetually catch up to those colonies and it will be devastating.

I just see where a feral colony was living in a Sycamore tree for the last 3 years and when I checked on them last week that colony was a complete dead out...............and they were booming before summer. I suspect Varroa.


----------



## Oldtimer

Solomon Parker said:


> I think you ought to apologize for making fun of people's glasses. That's really disrespectful and not nice.:no:


Really Solomon. Finally, you got me! I apologise. 

Now, it is clear you take offense and ask for apologies, very lightly. Especially since you know I was not making fun of your glasses. When you excused yourself with no apology for the name calling you have engaged in, I said at the time you have taken offense at much less than the abuse you dish out yourself and here is an example.

But, if it's important enough for you to raise the matter I apologise, someone has to be the better man I suppose. Every indication is it will never be you.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Anyone keep count of how many times Oldtimer implied that I'm a lair?


WLC you said things that were not true. And I said they were not true. That's all, no name calling like you do.


----------



## WLC

"Bees may end up managed like cattle, pigs, and chicken, where we put them in confinement and bring the food to them...You could do feedlot beekeeping."

Thank you Captain Obvious. 

They're called hives, holding yards, etc. .

Not helpful. 

Let me make a prediction too: "In the future, we will keep bees in boxes and bring them sweets and patties of every description."


----------



## Solomon Parker

Oldtimer said:


> someone has to be the better man I suppose. Every indication is it will never be you.


Wow, just WOW!


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> All I said was he wasn't helping. It's not exactly an indictment of his character or skills as a beekeeper. If he's sore about it, have him send me an email, I answer emails. I'd be happy to discuss it with him in private.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me further elaborate and provide further context. This was originally posted in the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum where I posted it in hopes that it would be discussed in a treatment-free beekeeping context. I could give a flying rip what conventional and commercial beekeepers think. My criticism such as it is is wholly directed toward the ignorance and alarmist tendencies of the non-beekeeping public at large in relation to beekeeping itself which is so well demonstrated in this article and by its author. Randy Oliver simply isn't helping the ultimate survival of beekeeping when he says things like: because I am a stationary treatment-free beekeeper and have negative views toward what already exists and is already known as feedlot beekeeping. I grew up near one of those feedlots, a stopping off point between almonds and clover.
> 
> I as a treatment-free beekeeper am consistent in my frank disappointment with commercial beekeeping, how it makes possible destructive monoculture, and how in concentrating vast numbers of hives in one area each year it spreads disease like it would never be spread in the wild. I'm extremely disappionted that new beekeepers are sold a bill of goods (also known as a 3# package) from this industry which has an excellent chance of dying before it gets to be a year old, and therefore leaves said beekeeper out a couple hundred bucks and sorely disappointed that their hive died. And they get blamed or blame themselves for being poor beekeepers when in the real world, a hive ought to stay alive by itself, beekeeper or no.
> 
> But this is my view, and were this thread to have stayed where I put it, that context would have remained in place and while most of this nonsense would have still occurred (due to the egos involved (usually directed at me, I enjoy the temporary reprieve though this post will probably bring it to an end)) at least the proper context would have been in place.


I wish you would go visit bee-L and see what Randy Oliver said there about how disappointed he was in the Author of the Article, how the Author wrote what he thought he remembered Randy saying in their one hour long telephone interview putting quotation marks around what he thought he remembered Randy saying as if Randy actually said it, and more. As a favor to me, would you please? 

I don't imagine it would make you change your mind about much of anything but at least you would have a more complete an image of what occured in the production of the article.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not arguing about pesticides. I wanted to discuss the article in a treatment-free beekeeping context.
> 
> 
> I wanted to discuss the article with treatment-free beekeepers.


How would you see that going? According to my understanding of the rules, isn't that sort of discussion forbidden?


----------



## sqkcrk

BigDawg said:


> So, just to be clear, Randy Oliver claims that neonics being linked to increased colony mortality is an "urban myth that has never been demonstrated or confirmed in any study?"
> 
> Wow, no wonder the industry has him on the payroll!
> 
> There are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of papers published in peer-reviewed journals that discuss the possible relationship between neonics and CCD. It is HARDLY an urban myth!
> 
> Is it an urban myth to say that neonics are the cause of CCD, sure, there's not enough data to show that. But to claim that it's a myth that neonics have been linked to CCD is just laughable....


Were losses Jim Doan experienced caused by CCD or Pesticide Poisoning?


----------



## WLC

Mark:

Of course I know that Randy is a brilliant, articulate man who is passionate about beekeeping.

We ALL know that the Randy in the TIME article isn't the real Randy. 

Blame Bryan Walsh if you want.

However, my analysis of how Randy appears in the article is accurate.

Besides, I got some of you to read the "What happened to the bees this spring, 2013" piece. 

I use context to introduce content.

I even got Barry to link to it.


----------



## Solomon Parker

sqkcrk said:


> As a favor to me, would you please?


Mark, I would absolutely do that for you if you could provide me a link. I have looked for it and am unable to find it, I don't know what I'm doing wrong. But I would be more than happy to do that for you.




sqkcrk said:


> How would you see that going? According to my understanding of the rules, isn't that sort of discussion forbidden?


I don't see why it would be forbidden. I was obviously referring to the idea of "feedlot beekeeping" and not to discussing pesticides. With all the banter about neonics in this thread, there's been precious little from me on the subject. Nothing ever goes the way I see it anyway.


----------



## sqkcrk

Solomon, I websearched bee-L. When I got to bee-L I found there an Archive List topped w/ August 2013. Clicked on that and found two Time Article discussions listed there. That should do it.

I don't know how to Post Links. Sorry.


----------



## WLC

http://community.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-lsoftdonations.exe?A0=BEE-L

Like this.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Thanks Mark, I finally found it. I have never used Bee-L before and am not familiar with the format.



Randy Oliver said:


> It always amazes me the freedom with which magazine writers use quotation marks. I choose my words very carefully in interviews. But when the article comes out, the author typically summarizes what he remembers that I said, and puts those words into quotation marks as though I had said those exact words. *Luckily, in this case he was not far off the mark.*


I guess I must conclude that my original statement still stands. Even he doesn't disagree with how he was quoted in the article, only how the article turned out an that it was in fact alarmist and ignorant as I said. So anyone may disagree with my views of the article, but Randy would agree with 2/3 of my views on it, and I stand by my assertion that _he's not helping_.


----------



## WLC

As someone who was the target of a "Take Down Piece" in a major newspaper, I know what it feels like.
He needs to learn how to deal with the media. Randy needs a consultant.

WLC.


----------



## deknow

I'm guessing (and it's not a guess) that none of you have been interviewed very much.

In opposition to injecting 200,000+ trees with imidacloprid a few years ago, Ramona was quoted in the paper saying, "Cut all the trees down"...which wasn't at all what she was saying. A few weeks ago a local paper said that we keep bees on Long Island, NY....we keep bees on Long Island in Boston Harbor.

No reporter will ever give you a draft to correct (even if it is only to correct your quotes), and something is always quoted out of context.
To criticize Randy for making a true statement and having it used inappropriately is on the journalist, not on Randy.

If you are ever talking to the press, talk about half the speed you normally do...both so you can be heard, and so you don't have time to say too much. Only let phrases past your lips that you would be happy to be quoted in isolation of the rest of what you are saying, and if the reporter can quote you with a catchy comment or turn of phrase, he/she will....so try to supply some. Even then, you will only be happy with what ends up being printed 20% of the time...if that.

deknow


----------



## WLC

No Dean, I've done it all.

Randy needs a consultant.

It's not just a firewall.

They can propel you into many more markets than you could without them.

The downside, the script. I hope Randy has a good memory.


----------



## deknow

I forgot about all $$$ one earns being quoted in the paper...he definitely should hire a consultant with some of that money...maybe he could be quoted in the Ladies Home Journal next....I hear they pay 10X what Time pays.

deknow


----------



## Oldtimer

deknow said:


> , Ramona was quoted in the paper saying, "Cut all the trees down"
> deknow


Ha Ha, that's funny, well, not at all funny at the time I guess.

For me, I've been in several papers and magazines, and all of them had at the least one thing that made me cringe. I've also done a TV appearance and they even managed to cherry pick that to make it very sensationalist when that was not my overall meaning at all.


----------



## squarepeg

sol, 

fwiw i believe that your alarmist and ignorant comments were not directed at randy but rather at the article and it's author. i felt the same way after reading the first sentence:

"You can thank the Apis mellifera, better known as the Western honeybee, for 1 in every 3 mouthfuls you'll eat today."

(Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2149141,00.html#ixzz2bnWoQwNe)

1 in 3? really? come on.

my take is that randy tried to be helpful in setting the record straight, but his efforts were thwarted by the sensationalizing author. it's too bad that gloom and doom sells so well, and i don't doubt that there is some behind the scenes 'pesticide politics' going on there as well.


----------



## WLC

That's not my assessment of Randy's potential.

He's the perfect U.S. spokesman for the Industry's Honeybee Health Initiative.

There's ample work to be done on combatting the parasites and pathogens that U.S. beekeepers face.

But, he's not there quite yet.

I don't blame him for the TIME piece.

He's a star in the making. 

I mean that sincerely.

WLC

PS: So what if I beat him up a little?


----------



## deknow

We have a friend...very capable and knowledgable beekeeper. She has been to several of our classes and conferences, we have traveled to Arizona together, ...she is even one of our new bee inspectors in Massachusetts. This is someone who is very sharp, very precise, and already has been exposed and discussed with us our approach and our material.
She got us invited to speak at her county club...everything was great, we gave a good talk (our talks are very dense with information compared to most), we were very well recieved. Our friend wrote up a summary for their club website...95% spot on...but even a smart person who is as much an expert on our material as one can be doesn't get 100%.
The only alternative is not to say anything.

deknow


----------



## sqkcrk

deknow said:


> I'm guessing (and it's not a guess) that none of you have been interviewed very much.
> 
> In opposition to injecting 200,000+ trees with imidacloprid a few years ago, Ramona was quoted in the paper saying, "Cut all the trees down"...which wasn't at all what she was saying. A few weeks ago a local paper said that we keep bees on Long Island, NY....we keep bees on Long Island in Boston Harbor.
> 
> No reporter will ever give you a draft to correct (even if it is only to correct your quotes), and something is always quoted out of context.
> To criticize Randy for making a true statement and having it used inappropriately is on the journalist, not on Randy.
> 
> If you are ever talking to the press, talk about half the speed you normally do...both so you can be heard, and so you don't have time to say too much. Only let phrases past your lips that you would be happy to be quoted in isolation of the rest of what you are saying, and if the reporter can quote you with a catchy comment or turn of phrase, he/she will....so try to supply some. Even then, you will only be happy with what ends up being printed 20% of the time...if that.
> 
> deknow


What I wrote before about all the names being spell correctly was only half of the story. While working at Colonial Williamsburg The Carpenters, of which I was one, cut down a black walnut tree which had died in the Historic area. The Craft Shops Department got us Press Coverage as this was going to be a joint production between the Carpenters and the Gunsmith Shop. We cut the tree, transported it to our Saw Pit, cut the log w/ our pit saw so it could be used for gun stocks. 

When the Newspaper Article came out it said that we were cutting "walnut gun barrels". Mistakes happen.


----------



## WLC

I wonder how many people read the TIME article in the U.S.?
I've been on CNN and my family in Europe have seen me.
Do we understand the scale of this yet?


----------



## Barry

Solomon Parker said:


> I'm not arguing about pesticides. I wanted to discuss the article in a treatment-free beekeeping context.


and posting "Alarmist, ignorant, Randy Oliver not helping as usual" in your opening post somehow conveys this? Sorry, it has nothing to do with TF beekeeping so I moved it.


----------



## Barry

BigDawg said:


> So, just to be clear, Randy Oliver claims that neonics being linked to increased colony mortality is an "urban myth that has never been demonstrated or *confirmed* in any study?"
> 
> [snip]
> 
> There are literally dozens and dozens and dozens of papers published in peer-reviewed journals that discuss the *possible* relationship between neonics and CCD.


Emphases mine.


----------



## WLC

Don't downplay the error.

This is exactly what will trip Randy up.

Barry, how hard was it for me to upset everyone and get the owner of Beesource to post the offending "What happened to the bees..." quote himself?

As unsettling as it was, it was instructive.

Randy was 'Taken Down' in the TIME article.

The offensive quote in "What happened..." is exactly the issue. It never should have been written.

I don't know how the "it's not a major issue" quote got in when referring to insecticides, or how Randy got himself into that 'killbox' paragraph, along with the pesticide manufacturers in TIME.

That's just bad prep.

But you know what, with smart phones today, it was unnecessary.

There was no script.

So, let's stop beating each other up.

Hopefully, Randy will take this lesson seriously.

PS: try the Lu paper next time you want to get on someone's case about evidence for neonics and colony losses, Randy hates it.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> No Dean, I've done it all.
> 
> Randy needs a consultant.


Randy's not running for office.


----------



## Solomon Parker

deknow said:


> The only alternative is not to say anything.


Well that's not going to happen.





Barry said:


> Sorry, it has nothing to do with TF beekeeping so I moved it.


I would have figured that posting something in the Treatment-Free Beekeeping Forum meant that somebody would want to talk about treatment-free beekeeping, but I have been proven wrong on that front repeatedly.


----------



## WLC

Barry:

Consultants do much more than just politics.

WLC.


----------



## Ben Franklin

Setting the stage for us who try to raise awareness of the blight of Honey Bees, Pollinators and humanes, this Times Article diminishes our efforts.
To sit by and let it go,, is not the answer. We must stand up and shot from the Mountains.


----------



## BlueDiamond

BigDawg said:


> Wow, no wonder the industry has him on the payroll!


Who's neonic industry payroll? In February 18, 2013 on [email protected] Sharon Muczynski <[email protected]> wrote:

"I am retracting my statement about Randy Oliver working for Bayer. I misspoke. He does do work, as an independent contractor for Beelogics, a company owned by Monsanto. My apologies to Randy. I should have checked my facts better."


----------



## WLC

Bluediamond:

My own opinion is this:

It's O.K. to represent an industry.

However, I won't respect you if you don't believe in your own mission.

I'm saying, "Don't hide in shadows."

That's my issue.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> *I'm saying, "Don't hide in shadows."*



:lpf: :lpf: :lpf: :lpf:


----------



## WLC

I meant paid spokesmen.


----------



## WLC

Forget I tried to help Randy. But, it wasn't a stellar interview.


----------



## Oldtimer

Well post 286 was refreshing, to see there is at least one person capable of retracting after realising they had been telling untruths.

I'm old, and was starting to wonder what kind of world, and morals, I now live amongst. I accept some never will do the right thing and it's always been that way, but I'm pleased there is one.


----------



## gmcharlie

Randy was taken down?? really? by who? Nobody important who even knew Randy read that article.. And those that do Know Randy and his work realized what happened......


----------



## WLC

I'm referring to the term "Take Down Piece" used by the media to describe what was done to Randy.

I wouldn't speculate on how many or who read the article. Whether they knew Randy or not.

By who? Walsh.


----------



## clyderoad

WLC- know this song?
-come on baby, lets do the twist-
2400+ posts and i'm hard pressed to find anything useful

keep on dancing-adios


----------



## WLC

You know the saying about opinions clyde.

We all have one. 

The Boston Globe didn't name Randy, but describes him as trying to discredit a study by the hero of the story, Lu.

The TIME article paints him as a pesticide industry spokesman.

I'm seeing a pattern developing.


----------



## squarepeg

funny, i was painted as an industry spokesman myself here on beesource for merely questioning why certain contributors were stating as a matter of fact that ccd was caused by neonics. it's a common tactic wlc, and usually ineffective. i don't see randy allowing himself to be 'defined', he's been around the block a time or two.


----------



## WLC

I would say that most people will see or hear the Media's take on what is impacting pollinators, and accept it as factual.

I would agree with their assessment. I also agree with the NPDF's suit of the EPA.

Fortunately, in the real world, I'm in the majority.

TIME zapped someone with views differing from the majority, I point it out, then the usual nonsense happens.

I think that alot more people read the TIME article than have ever read Beesource, Bee-l, or anything Randy for that matter.

Regardless, Randy's views on neonics don't reflect those of the majority of folks in the U.S. or the EU.

I think that the TIME piece demonstrated that.

The media, Bryan Walsh, got that part right.


----------



## beedeetee

WLC said:


> Regardless, Randy's views on neonics don't reflect those of the majority of folks in the U.S. or the EU.
> 
> I think that the TIME piece demonstrated that.
> 
> The media, Bryan Walsh, got that part right.


..and whether they are correct or not, is irrelevant it seems.


----------



## squarepeg

.... and the eu politicians caved to public sentiment, factual or not. i hope that our leaders take a more pragmatic approach, whichever way it goes.


----------



## WLC

Clearly, Randy's statements on pesticides are the issue.
As I've pointed out, they can be obviously wrong.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

Let's wait to see how the NPDF suit against the EPA goes.


----------



## Solomon Parker

squarepeg said:


> i hope that our leaders take a more pragmatic approach, whichever way it goes.


The "ban first, ask questions later" is a much better approach. If only we had done that with lead based paint, asbestos, DDT, etc.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> The "ban first, ask questions later" is a much better approach. 

So nobody can introduce a new product with prior government approval? :scratch:

Keep in mind that asbestos and paint were not considered a pesticide, so apparently Solomon's rules would extend beyond beyond pesticides, to ... *everything*!

Sounds like a _great _system!

:ws:


----------



## Solomon Parker

Absolutely. Prove it's safe, then you can sell it. Completely reasonable in the first world.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

> Completely reasonable in the first world.

Once that approach is fully implemented the USA will be well a down the path to a third world country!


----------



## Solomon Parker

I guess you'd prefer the "rush through testing then drag feet for decades in court while cancer cases build in number."


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Lets be realistic here. Humans, like bees, and every other organism on earth are going to _*continue to die. *_If we reduce human deaths from one cause, say smallpox, that person will still die, sooner or later, of some *other *cause, perhaps cancer. Everyone dies of _something_! Even if cancer is miraculously abolished, every human (and every other organism) will still die anyway.


----------



## beedeetee

I can just imagine someone trying to prove that a car is safe to a government agency.


----------



## David LaFerney

Compared to the automobile deathtraps of yesteryear (before substantial regulation) cars are incredibly safe. Drivers, that's another story.

You know I have no problem with taking responsibility for my own health and safety if I haven't been lied to about the risks involved in whatever - used to have one of those gas guzzling, big block powered, over cammed deathtraps, it was a blast. On the other hand I do take issue with that person coming toward me while obviously texting crossing the center line - it happens at least a couple of times a week it seems. I suspect that if things keep progressing as they are, sooner or later I or someone I care about will be in a serious accident which involves a Driver playing with a cell phone - Oh wait it already did - that 22 year old friend of my daughter who was all layed out in the same box with her infant daughter. Saddest thing I ever saw.

I also don't fancy being poisoned because non-regulation = higher corporate profits. Do you? How does the invisible hand of the market adjust for that - "YO, people are dying from eating that, Probably shouldn't buy no more of that stuff." Company goes out of business, problem solved? Freaking genius that.

If the government should regulate ANYTHING it should be poisons that are intentionally added to our food supply.

But, was this thread about the merits of government regulation? No?

Sorry.


----------



## Nabber86

beedeetee said:


> I can just imagine someone trying to prove that a car is safe to a government agency.


Or honeybees for that matter.


----------



## David LaFerney

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Lets be realistic here. Humans, like bees, and every other organism on earth are going to _*continue to die. *_If we reduce human deaths from one cause, say smallpox, that person will still die, sooner or later, of some *other *cause, perhaps cancer. Everyone dies of _something_! Even if cancer is miraculously abolished, every human (and every other organism) will still die anyway.


Completely true, but completely irrelevant. It's one of those logical fallacies like straw man or ad hominem - I'm not sure which. Probably sick that day. Anyway, yes everyone will die of something sooner or later. Try using that after you shoot someone. Much better to just say you were scared of them.


----------



## Solomon Parker

Straw man. Ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than the argument.


----------



## cg3

Considering world overpopulation- maybe it would be better if we were to die young.


----------



## Solomon Parker

You first. :lpf:


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> squarepeg:
> 
> Let's wait to see how the NPDF suit against the EPA goes.


the complaint is specifically against sulfoxaflor if i understand it correctly.


----------



## cg3

Solomon Parker said:


> You first. :lpf:


My preference would be to be able to learn what is known about a product before using it without having to sort out research from hype.


----------



## Oldtimer

cg3 said:


> without having to sort out research from hype.


Therein the issue. Companies launching a new product will always put their spin on it, and it can take considerable skill on the consumers part to sort out the real story.

Along with that, there is always someone or some group, who have a problem with anything.

Combine all this with the fact that humans often act like herd animals, and you have our current situation.


----------



## squarepeg

Oldtimer said:


> Therein the issue. Companies launching a new product will always put their spin on it, and it can take considerable skill on the consumers part to sort out the real story.
> 
> Along with that, there is always someone or some group, who have a problem with anything.
> 
> Combine all this with the fact that humans often act like herd animals, and you have our current situation.


right on the money ot.


----------



## WLC

While I don't know the exact numbers represented by the beekeeper groups suing the EPA, I think that it represents a significant proportion of them. It could be a majority.

They're not just 'some group'.

I'm sure that some beekeepers here call many of them 'friends'.

If you have the TIME article, you can probably see where in the "Sublethal Effects" section your own views fall. I wouldn't want to be in that last paragraph.

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

Someone probably knows the number of beekeepers represented by the groups listed.

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

I hope that no one was provoked into working against their own best interests by what occurred in this thread.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> While I don't know the exact numbers represented by the beekeeper groups suing the EPA, I think that it represents a significant proportion of them. It could be a majority.


I know that you have brought this up several times in this thread and in many others, but do you seriously think suing the EPA is going to get anywhere? I hate to crush your dreams (besides I dont have to; the EPA will do it for me), but it is a nonstarter.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

Not to worry ... its a fundraising tactic for the eco groups. They can now appeal to their members for extra funds to fight the _good fight_. It is immaterial as to whether the lawsuit has a chance of success or not, so long as the additional $$$ keep rolling in!

:lpf:  :lookout:


----------



## WLC

Bret Adee is president of the NPDF.

As for suggesting that nationally organized U.S. beekeepers can't successfully take on a government agency...

So, you're telling U.S. beekeepers to act against their own best interests?


----------



## Oldtimer

He's talking reality.

There's the world the way you would like it, and there's the real world.


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> the complaint is specifically against sulfoxaflor if i understand it correctly.


the action is an attempt to require 'enforceable labeling protection for bees' on sulfoxaflor. are there such labeling protections for other pesticides?


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> As for suggesting that nationally organized U.S. beekeepers can't successfully take on a government agency...


I am just telling it like it is. Over 25 years experience working with the EPA tells me that the lawsuit will have precisely 2 results; jack and squat. Although you can keep holding your breath if you want to.


----------



## cg3

I've not heard of the EPA reversing itself often.


----------



## WLC

I believe in Bret Adee's leadership.


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> I believe in Bret Adee's leadership.



And Gina McCarthy is going to squash him like a little bug. That is not a "belief" it's the truth.


You know what they say about wishing in one hand....


----------



## BlueDiamond

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Not to worry ... its a fundraising tactic for the eco groups. They can now appeal to their members for extra funds to fight the _good fight_. It is immaterial as to whether the lawsuit has a chance of success or not, so long as the additional $$$ keep rolling in!


Anyone can keep track of the NPDF's finances here: http://990finder.foundationcenter.o...tional+pollinator&st=&zp=&ei=&fy=&action=Find


----------



## Nabber86

Total assets of $4,886? 
:lpf:

That lawsuit is going to go far.


----------



## WLC

Defeatists and collaborators!

So, that's what I've been fighting, mostly single handedly.

You can't convince U.S. beekeepers not to act in their own best interests.

You're in the minority, and badly outnumbered.


----------



## beedeetee

WLC said:


> You can't convince U.S. beekeepers not to act in their own best interests.


The problem is, if they ban systemics we say hello to the crop dusters again. A lot of us haven't had any problem with systemics but have with the alternative. So what's our best interest?


----------



## WLC

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

They represent the best interests of U.S. beekeepers.

And, they're suing the EPA.


----------



## Oldtimer

I've lost bees to the crop dusting approaches of the old days.

That I'm aware, none to neonicitiniods in fact I'm virtually certain of that.

None of this sublethal, sickness stuff either. Any pesticide administered to bees at sub lethal doses could have an effect it applies equally to the chemicals of the past.

Choose between the two, the modern approach is best.

In a perfect bee world there would be no pesticides, sure. But that's not going to happen. is it.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I'm referring to the term "Take Down Piece" used by the media to describe what was done to Randy.
> 
> I wouldn't speculate on how many or who read the article. Whether they knew Randy or not.
> 
> By who? Walsh.


Randy Oliver was not the subject of the article, so I believe you use the term incorrectly.


----------



## Barry

WLC said:


> As I've pointed out,


Over, and over, and over, and over, and over, ad nauseam.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> "The National Pollinator Defense Fund, American Honey Producers Association, National Honey Bee Advisory Board, the American Beekeeping Federation..."


Empire State Honey Producers Association


----------



## WLC

Yes, the ESHPA. Their Logo is on the NPDF site as a sponsor.

How many total beekeepers would you estimate are represented by those organizations sqkcrk?


----------



## Oldtimer

How many bees have you lost to neonics WLC?


----------



## sqkcrk

BlueDiamond said:


> Anyone can keep track of the NPDF's finances here: http://990finder.foundationcenter.o...tional+pollinator&st=&zp=&ei=&fy=&action=Find


That's strange. Maybe they spent the money ESHPA sent them.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> Randy Oliver was not the subject of the article, so I believe you use the term incorrectly.


Randy was depicted as a spokesman that doesn't believe insecticides are a major issue in contrast to Jim Doan, who gave up his beekeeping operation, blamed neonics, and IS suing the EPA.

We read the same article Mark.


----------



## WLC

Oldtimer said:


> How many bees have you lost to neonics WLC?


How many bees do you keep on U.S. soil?

Jim Doan was the tragic figure in the TIME article. How many hives does he think he lost to neonics?

I dunno.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk:

How did PLB vote on the ESHPA sponsoring of the NPDF? I suspect you were a 'yay'.


----------



## sqkcrk

He wasn't present.


----------



## WLC

sqkcrk said:


> He wasn't present.


Been there, done that, to an absent member.


----------



## Oldtimer

Oldtimer said:


> How many bees have you lost to neonics WLC?





WLC said:


> How many bees do you keep on U.S. soil?.


Why do you answer a question with a question?

I keep no bees on US soil.

But that matters not. I keep bees where neonics are used, and I have stated my losses.

Again, what are your losses to neonics? What's the secret?


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> Jim Doan was the tragic figure in the TIME article. How many hives does *he think* he lost to neonics?


_He speculates with no proof_.

FTFY




WLC said:


> I dunno.


Obviously. You have demonstrated that more times than I can count.


----------



## WLC

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3104998/

I don't know when the last time was that they used imidacloprid to treat trees in Central Park for beetles.

So, I dunno.

I'm more concerned about anvil 10-10 that they use to control west nile virus. I'm monitoring the spraying schedule very closely.

Last year, they sprayed the area right by my hives with Anvil 10-10 in early September.

My hives either starved or were deadouts perhaps because of the spraying.

I simply ordered new bees.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> How many bees do you keep on U.S. soil?
> 
> Jim Doan was the tragic figure in the TIME article. How many hives does he think he lost to neonics?
> 
> I dunno.


He came North this past Spring w/ 1,000 colonies and last I heard has 300 live colonies. I imagine he thinks that 700 died from neonics. Though I haven't heard him say so. He has blamed previous losses to seed coating dust. But has been frustrated by the DEC not doing its job.


----------



## WLC

That's just awful.


----------



## Roland

Let be get this straight, WLC wrote:

My hives either starved or were deadouts perhaps because of the spraying.

I simply ordered new bees. 


So which was it? Certainly an expert such as yourself would want to know, and with all your degrees, should not stop untill they know the truth. 


Crazy Roland


----------



## Oldtimer

Goes with the territory Roland. The if's, but's, and assumptions, that permeates all the literature of the "neonics cause everything" folks, is the main reason I'm not on board. The term "pretend science" that was recently coined, fits well.



WLC said:


> That's just awful.


Yes first time I'd agree. Your enemy Randy is concerned also, and has written on the subject of seed dust. So not sure how you make him your enemy.

But tell me WLC. Do you think other insecticides don't kill bees? Please explain why the old insecticides are your preferred option.


----------



## WLC

Gee Roland:

I've got BeeWeavers in a tower hive, its filling up well, and the clover is blooming in Central Park with the wet weather.

If a strong hive, with plenty of stores, goes down overwinter after they spray Anvil 10-10 in early September (Yes, they do spray the area of Central park where my bees forage on clover), I'll know.

OT:
Randy is an opponent to my own best interests and those of other beekeepers supporting the NPDF suit of the EPA. His tactic is to blame 'PP' Beekeeping, not pesticides for losses. Something you don't want to say to an experienced, commercial beekeeper like Doan.

As for using the 'fear' of other pesticides as a reason not to oppose the use of pesticides that are causing harm...

...that's a false argument and a non issue.


----------



## Oldtimer

You are mistaken. If neonicitiniods are banned, they will be replaced by something else. 

You were not aware of that?


----------



## WLC

http://www.beesource.com/forums/sho...y-quot-Systemic-Pesticide&p=985901#post985901

Do you mean by a new 'bee-friendly' product, like Sivanto?

You weren't aware of that?


----------



## Oldtimer

Well sort of not aware, I must be honest. In so far as I don't have enough knowledge of sivanto to comment.

Interesting though that your enemy, Bayer, claim this insecticide is a "bee friendly product", and, for the purposes of this argument, you buy it.

Not like you at all, yes I must have been right, you are a Bayer shill.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> That's just awful.


He has a number of storys like that. This is not his first experience. I wondered why he didn't find other locations for his bees.

I don't know why Jim is having the hive kills he is having or why he is almost the only one in NY having the experience he is having. There are other beekeepers who have had heavy winterkill, stationary operations. No one quite like Jim. I feel for Jim and certainly don't have any idea why he has had such experience as he has and certainly have no useful advice for him. He has twice the experience in beekeeping than I do in years and numbers.

One friend of mine, another beekeeper, pointed out to me that quite often when farms pass hands from one generation to the next they often go down hill.'


----------



## WLC

I've changed the punctuation.
Out with the old, in with the new.
As long as it isn't worse than the old stuff.


----------



## Oldtimer

You are not supposed to change what you said, after somebody has replied to it.

Kind of smacks of saying whatever is convenient, at the time. Although I've been seeing that the whole thread.


----------



## sqkcrk

I wonder why Bryan Walsh didn't feature any other beekeepers than Jim Doan? Certainly there are other examples. Wouldn't having more than one example have been more impressive?


----------



## WLC

I'm sorry to hear about his long running problems.

I can see why it would be hard to change operations and locations. Especially if you've done things the same way for decades.

My own problems stem from eradication programs. I've got no where else to go.


----------



## Oldtimer

Success stories from people who successfully keep bees among neonics treated crops are too boring. Looking for something that will whip up peoples emotions will sell more copy, it does not have to be balanced, and doesn't matter if the example used is not typical.

Exactly the same happens in my country.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> I'm sorry to hear about his long running problems.
> 
> I can see why it would be hard to change operations and locations. Especially if you've done things the same way for decades.
> 
> My own problems stem from eradication programs. I've got no where else to go.


Jim has the whole State of NY to look for other locations. His cousin hasn't had any trouble finding bee yards and he has twice or three times the hives that Jim started the season with.


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> Success stories from people who successfully keep bees among neonics treated crops are too boring. Looking for something that will whip up peoples emotions will sell more copy, it does not have to be balanced, and doesn't matter if the example used is not typical.
> 
> Exactly the same happens in my country.


I meant other examples like Jim's, not the opposite. More than one or two of the same to bolster his argument.


----------



## WLC

Like Steve Ellis?

He's suing too.

PS: Steve has found evidence of neonic, off target, contamination.


----------



## WLC

Jim's cousin in Pennsylvania?

I wouldn't assume that it's easier to find new locations the way habitat loss and pesticides have impacted beekeeping.

That's just not a reasonable assumption, nor is it fair.

Should he move to Europe?

I think that Jim has cause to sue the EPA.

Hey, in effect, many beekeepers are doing it through organizational affiliations.

sqkcrk, you're effectively suing as well, via the ESHPA. 

Let's just say that I know who the opponent is, and I'm not letting him off the ropes.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Jim's cousin in Pennsylvania?
> 
> I wouldn't assume that it's easier to find new locations the way habitat loss and pesticides have impacted beekeeping.
> 
> That's just not a reasonable assumption, nor is it fair.
> 
> Should he move to Europe?


No offense meant WLC, you have no experience finding locations outside of NYC. What one needs to do is drive around the rural areas of NY and ask. Jim knows how to find beeyards. Certainly he has established new apiaries. He knows the State Apiculturalist who could direct him to unoccupied apiaries if necessary. 

It isn't an assumption and I don't understand what is unfair about the idea.

Yes, his cousin from PA.


----------



## Roland

WLC wrote:

If a strong hive, with plenty of stores, goes down overwinter after they spray Anvil 10-10 in early September (Yes, they do spray the area of Central park where my bees forage on clover), I'll know.

And what will you know? Only that it is dead. Nothing else could have killed it, Like Nosema c., Mites, viruses......?????

We lost 90 percent 2 years in a row back in 2005,2006. Figured it out, now back to "normal" post mite losses. We are surrounded by corn, soybeans and alfalfa.

Unless you have a baseline pesticide level for your hives, and can correlate a spike with a winter loss, most everything you conclude would be conjecture.

If you cannot even analyze your own losses, how can you speak with any authority on anyone elses's losses?

Crazy Roland


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC, rest assured if Neonics are Banned they will still spray central park with something.....

Its also interesting that Jim Doan is sueing the EPA. easier case than sueing Monsanto....and deeper pockets. Makes me wonder if hes more af an ambulance chaser than a beekeeper... Just a opinion, don't know him myself. But when someone sues for something everyone else deals with, I sure wonder.... Can't get a decent hot cup of coffee because of such items...


----------



## sqkcrk

Roland said:


> WLC wrote:
> 
> If a strong hive, with plenty of stores, goes down overwinter after they spray Anvil 10-10 in early September (Yes, they do spray the area of Central park where my bees forage on clover), I'll know.
> 
> And what will you know? Only that it is dead. Nothing else could have killed it, Like Nosema c., Mites, viruses......?????
> 
> We lost 90 percent 2 years in a row back in 2005,2006. Figured it out, now back to "normal" post mite losses. We are surrounded by corn, soybeans and alfalfa.
> 
> Unless you have a baseline pesticide level for your hives, and can correlate a spike with a winter loss, most everything you conclude would be conjecture.
> 
> If you cannot even analyze your own losses, how can you speak with any authority on anyone elses's losses?
> 
> Crazy Roland


This guy right here is someone that should have been interviewed for the article.

I would also say that if one doesn't monitor one's hives for pests and diseases then thinking one knows what has killed their hive is conjecture and assumption. Something I imagine a Scientist would loss their credentials over were they to publish their "findings" based on what they think happened w/out evidence.

Did you put bees back into the hive that you think was killed by pesticide applications?


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> WLC, rest assured if Neonics are Banned they will still spray central park with something.....
> 
> Its also interesting that Jim Doan is sueing the EPA. easier case than sueing Monsanto....and deeper pockets. Makes me wonder if hes more af an ambulance chaser than a beekeeper... Just a opinion, don't know him myself. But when someone sues for something everyone else deals with, I sure wonder.... Can't get a decent hot cup of coffee because of such items...


Isn't the suit being persued to effect those that the EPA regulates, such as Monsanto?


----------



## suburbanrancher

"Still, for all the alarm, honeybees are likely to pull through. As I point out in the magazine piece, beekeepers have mostly managed to replace lost colonies, though at a cost high enough that some long-time beekeepers are getting out of the business altogether. Beekeepers are buying new queens and splitting their hives, which cuts into productivity and honey production, but keeps their colony numbers high enough to so far meet pollination demands. They’re adding supplemental feed—often sugar or corn syrup—to compensate for the lack of wild forage." Emphasis added by me.

I've seen that mentioned in other places, that the colonies are being "replaced." Part of the purpose of the BEEinformed Partnership was to identify actual loss. If you had 5 hives, lost 2 and split 2, your end hive number is still 5 hives. So if you were asked at the beginning and ending of each year how many hives you had, the answer was 5. But no one knew you lost 2, because you "replaced" them.

The author mentions that the honey bees are likely to "pull through", how may I ask? By us babying them or letting them adapt? I have 4 hives right now, I can't risk losing all 4 hives in my attempt to let them "adapt". I already have what I call "neglected bees" from a beekeeper that did not manage for mites beyond the occasional sugar sprinklem that's one plus for adaptation. I also have distant VSH traits (essentially at a pointless level now) in my hives but to hedge my survival bets I used MAQS to knock down the mite population. 

One thing that makes me doubt my choice to keep bees, as much as I LOVE beekeeping, is whether beekeepers in areas like mine should really keep bees if you have to feed them most of the time? I've heard of places where they are still putting supers on. THOSE are the places that should have hives, because the forage is plentiful enough that the bees should be able to put on enough *honey* to survive the winter, not sugar syrup. My thought process and plans for my beekeeping are evolving. Honey bees in my area could not go an entire season without being fed and they aren't meant to live on sugar syrup alone, it's just not right and I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to do about it.


----------



## gmcharlie

sqkcrk said:


> Isn't the suit being persued to effect those that the EPA regulates, such as Monsanto?


Ahh but there is much between the lines. On the outset it seems to be a "feel good" lawsuit...... but there is more than meets the eye. two Major points. First, proving the EPA should regulate or Ban is easier.. It is in the EPA nature to want to do the same, so they will not argue nearly as much as Say Monsanto.,,,,, Second, a win here also re coupes all associated cost. from the taxpayers. Rest assured that wil be amny millons of dollars in legal fees and I belive that it will and can include time and suffering of the plantif, but without a copy of the state laws for the state it was filed in, I cannot be sure. It would in Il, and I am pretty sure NY also. A win here would also set up as a slam dunk, a major Liability lawsuit as the next step, but that would be conjecture


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> the complaint is specifically against sulfoxaflor if i understand it correctly.





squarepeg said:


> the action is an attempt to require 'enforceable labeling protection for bees' on sulfoxaflor.


wlc, i haven't found where randy oliver has opposed the labeling protection for sulfoxaflor.

has he gone on record opposing the labeling protection, or is it because he maintains that science has 'yet' to establish a causitive link between neonics and colony loss (other than by seed dust) that he has become your target.


----------



## gmcharlie

One would think that solving Jim Doan’s kill would have been straightforward, since there were fresh piles of dead bees in front of the hives. He hadn’t previously experienced serious kills in those yards, so something different had happened. There was no apparent change in plantings this year, but with commodity prices at an all-time high, a farmer might have felt that it was worthwhile to apply more or different insecticides as precautionary “risk management.” Surely it would be easy to find incriminatingly-high levels of the offending pesticide in the dead bees or combs.

According to Jim, due to unfamiliarity with the investigation of pesticide kills, the state inspector collected less than an optimal amount of bees for pesticide analysis. Two samples were later sent off to the USDA lab (the cost of analysis was split between Jim and Project Apism)—results below 

doan analysis

Figure 5. Analysis report of the two samples from Jim Doan’s spring bee kill (column headings added).
OK, so now Jim had a report. But what did it tell him? As for the dead bees, the 1.6 ppb* of clothianidin insecticide is far too low to have caused bee mortality (1.6 ppb = 0.16 ng/bee; the LD50 for clothianidin lies in the range of 22-44 ng/bee). 

* To help with the math, LD50 = median lethal dose; 1 ppb = 1 part per billion = 1 μg/kg = 1 ng/g; μg = microgram (one millionth); ng = nanogram (one billionth); a bee weighs about a tenth of a gram, so for every 10 ppb of residues in a sample of dead bees, any bee on average would contain 1 ng/bee .

So how about the high dose of Captan fungicide? As best I can tell from the literature, “Studies on the honeybee using technical Captan fungicide indicate that the LD50 is greater than 10 μg a.i./bee, and that there is 9.8% mortality at 215 μg a.i./bee.” So let’s do the math: 1290 ppb = 129 ng/bee, or 0.129 μg/bee—so again, it would be hard to make a case that this chemical was responsible for the obvious pile of dead bees.

Maybe the analysis of the pollen sample from the comb might help. I have no idea as to how it was taken, which can make a huge difference

Figure 6. These are plugs of beebread that I pulled from a brood frame. Note the layering of the different species of pollen. If a colony suffers from a pesticide kill, any traces of the responsible pesticide residue may only be in the topmost layer of pollen. If the state agent who takes the beebread sample scoops all the way to the midrib, he may dilute the offending pesticide by a factor of 10 or more.
The one pollen sample from the one comb from one colony (get my point?) in Jim’s affected apiary contained 399 ppb of the organophosphate insecticide Phosmet. The contact LD50 for this compound is listed as 0.0001 mg per bee (= 0.1 μg/bee = 100 ng/bee). Surprisingly, there doesn’t appear to be any published oral LD50 for Phosmet to honey bees! By my math, the concentration of Phosmet in Jim’s pollen sample would not be expected to have killed his bees either, although since it is a violation of the label to spray the insecticide on flowering crops, one is left wondering how it appeared in the pollen.

So this is how it can be for a beekeeper and his innocent bees—the suddenly-appearing piles of rotting corpses in front of every one of his hives certainly suggest that his bees were killed by a pesticide application. Unfortunately, due to a lackluster investigation by the primacy partner, and lack of implicating chemical evidence, Jim will never know what or who was responsible for the kill, nor be compensated for his losses, if justified. And he has no idea whether the same thing will happen again next season!

To make matters worse, Jim’s bees apparently got hit again in July, resulting in piles of greasy-looking dead and twitching dying bees in front of the entrances. And as I write these words in November, Jim sent me yet another photo of hundreds of freshly-dead bees once again in front of the hives (despite him confirming low levels of varroa and nosema). Jim is now a justifiably frustrated and angry beekeeper–not only did he suffer considerable financial loss (not to mention the ugly death of his beloved bees), but no one learned anything from the experience! The unwitting farmer(s) have no idea whether their pesticide applications caused the problem, Jim’s state agencies aren’t making any particular effort to prevent the same thing from happening again next year, and EPA didn’t receive any useful adverse effects report. Yes, frustrating!



Above was taken from Randys site.... http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f-colony-collapse-revisited-pesticides/ Interesting read. While I feel for Jim, I also cannot understand how one can keep loosing bees in the same yard and never learn anything? who? what? why?? seems very odd to me . If you lost 3000 hives you wouldn't move? or spend a ton of effort to figure out who sprayed what??


----------



## Oldtimer

He lost 3000 hives! Yikes. Whatever the cause, got to feel sorry for the guy.

Couple questions just because I'm interested, there were a number of kills, did they all coincide with planting? And secondly, did other beekeepers have yards in the same territory and if so were they affected?

I realise you may not know that GMCharlie cos you are just quoting an article, but if anyone knows I'd be interested.


----------



## sqkcrk

Excellent Post gmcharlie. I should read Randy's site more often. And where were Jim's bees before returning to NY? What had they foraged on?

I wonder if Randy will write a letter to TIME. I know they have a Letters and Comments section, unlike some publications.


----------



## gmcharlie

There is also a comment lower on that page that "another beekeeper on the same farm, experinced NO LOSSES, but did think his nucs were a little slow" To further complicate teh issue Mr Doan has a "history" of indemity payments......

again second hand info, but every bit as reliable as TIME


----------



## Coffee_Bee

> a win here also re coupes all associated cost. from the taxpayers


Add that to half a million dollars in subsidies received over the past 10 years ---for ONE beekeeper. If you work the system, it pays.
There's a recent interview showing him holding a bee with DWV -so the neonics did that?


BTW the EPA suit only involves (count 'em) FOUR beekeepers.

You can fool some of the people some of the time, but NOT all the people...


----------



## sqkcrk

gmcharlie said:


> There is also a comment lower on that page that "another beekeeper on the same farm, experinced NO LOSSES, but did think his nucs were a little slow" To further complicate teh issue Mr Doan has a "history" of indemity payments......
> 
> again second hand info, but every bit as reliable as TIME


The Bee Loss Insurance info is freely available to those who know how to look for it on the USDA website. I have seen the list but forget how to find it. It is Insurance that one pays for.


----------



## sqkcrk

Coffee_Bee said:


> Add that to half a million dollars in subsidies received over the past 10 years ---for ONE beekeeper. If you work the system, it pays.


Subsidies? I don't think so. Words matter. Use the right ones. Back up what you wrote w/ documentation please. Where did you get the half million dollars received over ten years information? From the NY Times article of a cpl years ago?

Who are the four beekeepers in the suit? Who is the one beekeeper? Are any of the people you write about doing anything illegal or unethical?


----------



## challenger

Do I dare?
http://www.americanbeejournal.com/site/epage/81673_828.htm

JMOHO although I'd love to have others give theirs-this warm & fuzzy, "Urban Beekeeping" thing that is all the rage has me in a rage. Well, not really a rage but completely frustrated.
Every issue of one of our beekeeping mags has a woman from DC bending over her hive listening to, "her girls" (another term that makes my skin crawl). I am of the belief that these large city bees produce plenty of honey but that this is actually "dumpster honey" collected from the tons of sweet tasting trash that people in these cities walk around and/or over every few steps.
I just cannot imagine there is enough forage for a crop of honey that isn't tainted with some, or a whole lot of, garbage "nectar"
Maybe the chinese would eagerly purchase such honey but if I was ever in the market for some raw honey I wouldn't think the origin of such would be inside of a large city-it just takes too many flowers to produce honey and these urban beekeepers are fooling only themselves. Oh - and some magazine editors and readers too I suppose.
The rant is on me-no charge.
Howard


----------



## Solomon Parker

challenger said:


> "her girls" (another term that makes my skin crawl).


Agreed. Anthropomorphization is a beast.



challenger said:


> I am of the belief that these large city bees produce plenty of honey but that this is actually "dumpster honey"


I like that term. That's a good catch-all for all the soda syrup, soggy doughnut, ice cream drippings, and hummingbird feeder derived "honey."


----------



## WLC

White clover looks good in Central Park. Some locust trees are blooming. And, my bees are bringing in pollen.

I just checked on them.

I don't eat city honey because I'm not a producer, and I prefer varietal Honey.

I'm also concerned about contaminants.

But, you can eat it if you like.

PS-Last I heard, U.S. hives tested positive for an average of 9 pesticides, including an organophosphate, fungicide, etc. . Yummy.
Don't throw stones.


----------



## WLC

Here's a link to the recent Brian Walsh WNYC interview:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2013/aug/13/dying-honeybees/

Enjoy!


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> White clover looks good in Central Park. Some locust trees are blooming. And, my bees are bringing in pollen.
> 
> I just checked on them.
> 
> I don't eat city honey because I'm not a producer, and I prefer varietal Honey.
> 
> I'm also concerned about contaminants.
> 
> But, you can eat it if you like.
> 
> PS-Last I heard, U.S. hives tested positive for an average of 9 pesticides, including an organophosphate, fungicide, etc. . Yummy.
> Don't throw stones.


Locusts in bloom in NYC right now? Our locust was finished blooming weeks ago, almost a month ago.


----------



## gmcharlie

challenger said:


> Do I dare?
> http://www.americanbeejournal.com/site/epage/81673_828.htm
> 
> JMOHO although I'd love to have others give theirs-this warm & fuzzy, "Urban Beekeeping" thing that is all the rage has me in a rage. Well, not really a rage but completely frustrated.
> Every issue of one of our beekeeping mags has a woman from DC bending over her hive listening to, "her girls" (another term that makes my skin crawl). I am of the belief that these large city bees produce plenty of honey but that this is actually "dumpster honey" collected from the tons of sweet tasting trash that people in these cities walk around and/or over every few steps.
> I just cannot imagine there is enough forage for a crop of honey that isn't tainted with some, or a whole lot of, garbage "nectar"
> 
> Howard



Funny you mention that, I sell bees and honey to 2 Major Zoos, both claim the biggest problem is there honey comes from Snow cones. STL even claims they seperate colors... not sure how but I have seen pictures and its is obvious its trash can snow cone syrup.


----------



## WLC

They're a couple of oddball trees that I spotted. One is a big one, the other is smaller.

I don't know why they're blooming now.


----------



## squarepeg

squarepeg said:


> wlc, i haven't found where randy oliver has opposed the labeling protection for sulfoxaflor.
> 
> has he gone on record opposing the labeling protection, or is it because he maintains that science has 'yet' to establish a causitive link between neonics and colony loss (other than by seed dust) that he has become your target.


no reply? i guess i've been added to wlc's ignore list.


----------



## challenger

WLC said:


> White clover looks good in Central Park. Some locust trees are blooming. And, my bees are bringing in pollen.
> 
> I just checked on them.
> 
> I don't eat city honey because I'm not a producer, and I prefer varietal Honey.
> 
> I'm also concerned about contaminants.
> 
> But, you can eat it if you like.
> 
> PS-Last I heard, U.S. hives tested positive for an average of 9 pesticides, including an organophosphate, fungicide, etc. . Yummy.
> Don't throw stones.


I don't feel as if I was throwing stones. That would be the case if my hives were also in an urban setting with the strong potential for sucking up corn syrup. Then my house would be made of glass and any returned stones would break it. My hives are in the "country" and I am comfortable with my belief that my honey is from plants (not beverage or candy plants). I just think there is a strong push, if you will, for urbanites to try & save the planet by keeping bees. Really it is just a way for these folk to try and clasp a tiny bit of nature and perhaps get a feel for something not made of concrete, glass, asphalt etc. I make these statements ONLY for those urban beekeepers that produce & provide honey to others from their hives. I am all for anyone with the notion of keeping bees to give it a try. Honey bees are amazing creatures no matter where they are kept.
Let me understand some other things:
You prefer varietal honey. Does this honey NOT have an average of 9 pesticides etc.???
You are concerned about contaminants yet your LIVE in NYC? Yikes! you must stay pretty darned concerned. I lived on LI and worked in NYC until 26 years ago and there are precious few less contaminated places in the USA.
I would never try and think I had the authority to suggest where someone lives but based on your concerns about contaminants NYC seems like a tough go.
I know reading what I'm trying to say makes me sound like some know it all, self absorbed, a$$hole but that's the problem with the typed word. I am certainly no better or more important than ANY other human being. These are just my thoughts and they are not meant in any way to hurt or insult anyone. Lord know we all need to enjoy the freedoms we have now & live however we decide is best for us and I hope & pray that is what we all try to do. Even if people with opposing views pop up once in a while.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

Sorry, I hadn't noticed the question.

They're challenging the approval of sulfoxaflor.

So, there isn't really a question if your assertions aren't correct.

Organizations representing beekeepers are suing the EPA and acting in my best interests.

Even Jim Doan is acting in my best interest by suing the EPA.

Let me ask you a straightforward question: "Do you support the lawsuit against the EPA filed by U.S. beekeeping organizations?"

I believe that I'm acting well within my rights by protecting my own interests.

That's my rationale.


----------



## WLC

I like some of the Langnese varietal Honeys.

I don't eat NYC honey.

And, I wouldn't make the mistake of getting some of the beekeeping ladies upset, especially around here.

PS-this is way off topic.


----------



## squarepeg

thanks for the reply, and i'll sleep better tonite knowing that you aren't ignoring me. 

my assertion that the lawsuit is based on the lack of labeling protection with sulfoxaflor comes from the information presented by npdf's counsel here:

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

my answer to your question is yes, i would support the lawsuit if:

1. sulfoxaflor used inappropriately could threaten bees and,

2. if there should have been labeling protections as part of the approval that were not included.

of course the environmentalist mantra against pesticides (neonics) extends above and beyond labeling protection for sufloxaflor.

and i must confess that i am not an expert on any of this, but i am willing to learn.

i believe that you are aware that randy oliver is a contributor to the npdf, and in fact has encouraged others to do so as well.

so a direct answer from you if you can give it, are you asserting that randy (painted 'benedict arnold' by you) is opposing the lawsuit, or are you more generally frustrated with him for not proclaiming that neonics should be banned?


----------



## WLC

Anyone can cut a check and claim support.

It's his actions that are the issue.

They don't match the words.

According to Randy, Jim Doan lost his bees to 'piss poor beekeeping'.

What was that Jim Doan quote? "It's not like I forgot how to keep bees."


----------



## squarepeg

according to randy:

"So this is how it can be for a beekeeper and his innocent bees—the suddenly-appearing piles of rotting corpses in front of every one of his hives certainly suggest that his bees were killed by a pesticide application. Unfortunately, due to a lackluster investigation by the primacy partner, and lack of implicating chemical evidence, _Jim will never know what or who was responsible for the kill_, nor be compensated for his losses, if justified. And he has no idea whether the same thing will happen again next season!"

(italics added)

from this article: http://scientificbeekeeping.com/sick-bees-part-18f-colony-collapse-revisited-pesticides/

sounds like randy is saying the cause of the loss in inconclusive. where can i find randy quoted accusing jim of ppb?


----------



## WLC

Randy has some nerve writing something like that.

It's cynical to the nth degree.

Jim Doan is an experienced beekeeper. If he says that it was pesticides, I'll take Doan's word for it.

I had no idea it had gotten this bad.


----------



## squarepeg

i'll leave it here wlc, but unless i'm reading impaired randy's "certainly suggest that his bees were killed by a pesticide application" comment doesn't bring that point into dispute.

it's obviously personal and probably none of my business, but in my view your attacks on randy remain groundless.

thanks again for the replies.


----------



## squarepeg

wlc, it's clear to me that despite your many calls for others to stop trolling you sure do a lot of it yourself!


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> According to Randy, Jim Doan lost his bees to 'piss poor beekeeping'.


Why do you keep putting words in peoples mouths, that they didn't say?

Here is what Randy REALLY said "So this is how it can be for a beekeeper and his innocent bees—the suddenly-appearing piles of rotting corpses in front of every one of his hives certainly suggest that his bees were killed by a pesticide application. Unfortunately, due to a lackluster investigation by the primacy partner, and lack of implicating chemical evidence, Jim will never know what or who was responsible for the kill, nor be compensated for his losses, if justified. And he has no idea whether the same thing will happen again next season!""



WLC said:


> Randy has some nerve writing something like that.
> 
> It's cynical to the nth degree.


Not so, in fact it's way more balanced than the words that you tried to put in Randy's mouth.

WLC if your campaign to blacken Randy had any merit, you would not have to twist words, make things up, and tell outright untruths, as you have been doing throughout the thread. Is the honest truth not compelling enough?



WLC said:


> Jim Doan is an experienced beekeeper. If he says that it was pesticides, I'll take Doan's word for it.


 Of course you will take his word for it, you will take the word of anyone who wants to blame something on neonics, regardless of merit. He may well be correct, pesticides do kill bees. Unfortunately the evidence is not compelling I cannot see a court case succeeding.

Randy is an experienced beekeeper so no doubt you will take his word for it?

Other thing, Randy never said anything like this, but blaming pesticides, means there might be somebody to sue. Others in the thread, not Randy, have said that the guy has a history.
His neighbouring beekeepers did not lose hives.

My suggestion? Weigh the evidence, before shooting the mouth.


----------



## GLOCK

opcorn:


----------



## WLC

Did Randy write that before, or after, the TIME article?

The timing is important.


----------



## squarepeg

WLC said:


> Thanks for the quote from Randy.
> 
> I was temporarily overcome by the revelation.


sorry man, can't take anything you have to say seriously, troll somebody else for awhile.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> The timing is important.


What might be more important, far as anyone reading you goes, is the twisting of words, half truths, untruths, and bias.

I note this tactic has not attracted many followers.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Did Randy write that before, or after, the TIME article?
> 
> The timing is important.


Look it up or ask him yourself. I appears as though Randy and Jim had been talking to each other. What Jim described happened a year ago this past corn planting season. So I imagine thbat Randy wrote that last Fall.


----------



## gmcharlie

Posted in Feb of this year. Long before Time... (that sounded funny)


----------



## gmcharlie

WLC said:


> Randy has some nerve writing something like that.
> 
> It's cynical to the nth degree.
> 
> Jim Doan is an experienced beekeeper. If he says that it was pesticides, I'll take Doan's word for it.
> 
> I had no idea it had gotten this bad.


Now thats freakin hilarious..... Take Jims word for it but the other 2000 beekeepers with no losses are idiots......and paid shills..... Oh my !


----------



## WLC

If it was before the TIME article, then I can understand why it was written the way it was.

2,000 w/ no losses. Says who?


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> They're challenging the approval of sulfoxaflor


They not challenging the approval of sulfoxaflor, they are trying to get the lableing changed. Additionally, it isnt really a law suit, it's an appeal process. 

At least try to get the facts right. I agree with Oldtimer: 



Oldtimer said:


> What might be more important, far as anyone reading you [WLC] goes, is the twisting of words, half truths, untruths, and bias.




Quote from a few websites: 

_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_.

_*Jeff Anderson, beekeeper:* “*EPA’s approval of Sulfoxaflor with no enforceable label protections for bees *will speed our industry’s demise. EPA is charged under FIFRA with protecting non-target beneficial insects, not just honeybees. EPA’s Sulfoxaflor registration press release says, ‘…the final label includes robust terms for protecting pollinators…’ This is a bold-faced lie!

*Rick Smith, beekeeper and farmer:* “ *EPA’s assessment process has chosen not to use long established and accepted published information concerning pollinator foraging habits in the Environment Hazards Section of the Sulfoxaflor label*.”_


----------



## beemandan

Nabber86 said:


> I agree with Oldtimer


For heaven's sake....why is anyone still engaging this .....wlc person?


----------



## WLC

beemandan said:


> For heaven's sake....why is anyone still engaging this .....wlc person?


I'm not sure why all the personal attacks are being directed at me.

I wasn't mentioned in the TIME article.

I strongly feel that it's perfectly acceptable to slaughter a sacred cow or two.

I want the right people speaking on my behalf and representing my best interests.


----------



## BeeCurious

It's curious that there isn't any rage over at Bee-L.


----------



## D Semple

WLC said:


> I'm not sure why all the personal attacks are being directed at me.


All the anonymous verbal sucker punches being thrown from the cheap seats would be my guess.



Don Semple
15243 Long St. 
Overland Park, KS 66221
(913) 660-6602
[email protected]


----------



## Nabber86

BeeCurious said:


> It's curious that there isn't any rage over at Bee-L.


Because they dont want to sink to this level (yes - myself included) 

Stay classy Beesource.


----------



## WLC

Perhaps because they know that the mainstream media feels the same way about a beekeeper/blogger, with a minority opinion, that I do.

Most individuals, with or without bees, won't support a strawman argument that bee losses aren't due to pesticides, but poor beekeeping practices.

I've had a number of discussions with people, who have read the TIME article.

They've all sided with Jim Doan's view.

I'm certainly not going to be dissuaded by a minority.

No one in the real world is listening to you.


----------



## Nabber86

How timely. This was released *TODAY!* 
_
As I said_, all they are going to do is change the labeling requirements for pesticides so they can "protect" the bees.
Game over. The EPA has won even before the battle started. WLC you can now put away your pitchfork. :banana:

Here is a picture of the new lable guidlines.

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/ecosystem/pollinator/bee-label-info-graphic.pdf 
*
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**
August 15, 2013* 
New Pesticide Labels Will Better Protect Bees and Other Pollinators 

WASHINGTON – In an ongoing effort to protect bees and other pollinators, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed new pesticide labels that prohibit use of some neonicotinoid pesticide products where bees are present. 

“Multiple factors play a role in bee colony declines, including pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency is taking action to protect bees from pesticide exposure and these label changes will further our efforts,” said Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.

The new labels will have a bee advisory box and icon with information on routes of exposure and spray drift precautions. Today’s announcement affects products containing the neonicotinoids imidacloprid, dinotefuran, clothianidin and thiamethoxam. The EPA will work with pesticide manufacturers to change labels so that they will meet the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) safety standard.

In May, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and EPA released a comprehensive scientific report on honey bee health, showing scientific consensus that there are a complex set of stressors associated with honey bee declines, including loss of habitat, parasites and disease, genetics, poor nutrition and pesticide exposure. 

The agency continues to work with beekeepers, growers, pesticide applicators, pesticide and seed companies, and federal and state agencies to reduce pesticide drift dust and advance best management practices. The EPA recently released new enforcement guidance to federal, state and tribal enforcement officials to enhance investigations of beekill incidents. 

More on the EPA’s label changes and pollinator protection efforts: http://www.epa.gov/opp00001/ecosystem/pollinator/index.html

View the infographic on EPA’s new bee advisory box: 

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


----------



## WLC

That's good news.

However, there's still more to be done to protect both native and managed pollinators.

This is an opportunity for you to listen to how this is going to be presented in the media, and by whom.

I predict that some will have the message, "It isn't enough!".


----------



## Nabber86

WLC said:


> *I predict *that some will have the message, "It isn't enough!".


No doubt, but it is still game over. You wont be hearing anything more on the subject from the EPA, at least for a very long time (decades). In their minds the issue is closed. They solved the problem by telling people (through labeling) _not to spray certain pesticides on bees, because spraying bees with certain pesticides kills them _(hmmm, I wonder where we have heard that before). The EPA has done their job and thay are all patting themselves on the back right now. *I predict *Obama will proclaim how the bees were saved during his administration. 

Maybe if you had any idea on how the EPA works, you would understand. But I guess that isnt going to happen, so keep on spinning your wheels and digging your hole.


----------



## WLC

You obviously aren't aware of the bad press the EPA has received from the WSJ, or a recent Judge's decision concerning an EPA official.

They are not patting themselves on the back.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack

WLC said:


> You obviously aren't aware of the bad press the EPA has received from the WSJ


The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) is a conservative newspaper controlled by Rupert Murdoch! Can you cite _anything _that the EPA has done in the last 5 years that the WSJ _approves _of? :lpf:


.


----------



## sqkcrk

Nabber86 said:


> _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*, _


That's a lot more than four people. I wonder if Coffee read this?


----------



## WLC

The EPA is on the ropes.

With their recent announcement, now is a good time for the NPDF, and allies, to make their demands known in a press release.

I know how this works fellas.

Mark, what is the ESHPA going to say in their press release in response to the EPA announcement?


----------



## sqkcrk

BeeCurious said:


> It's curious that there isn't any rage over at Bee-L.


Over what? Or was that a rhetorical question?


----------



## sqkcrk

Nabber86 said:


> *I predict *Obama will proclaim how the bees were saved during his administration.


I don't know why you thought it was necessary to throw that in there.


----------



## BeeCurious

sqkcrk said:


> Over what? Or was that a rhetorical question?


Well, there doesn't seem to be anyone going on and on and on... about Randy Oliver, the focus of this thread.


----------



## WLC

You have to beat 5:00pm to go national this evening. Tic, Tock.


----------



## WLC

BeeCurious:

The same thing applies to a spokesman like Randy.

Let's hope that he doesn't shank this one as well.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Mark, what is the ESHPA going to say in their press release in response to the EPA announcement?


You'll have to go to Bee-L and ask Aaron Morris, ESHPA President. ESHPA doesn't very often do Press Releases. So I wouldn't expect one on this.


----------



## sqkcrk

BeeCurious said:


> Well, there doesn't seem to be anyone going on and on and on... about Randy Oliver, the focus of this thread.


Bee-L is where Randy Oliver discusses things on the web. The Thread over there on the TIME Article is 17 Posts long. Interesting. ?


----------



## Riskybizz

Thank you Hazel for your post #174, it was almost trampled on. WLC I have to admit you had your moments of brilliance but post #388 sure wasn't one of them...are you sure your a beekeeper?


----------



## WLC

Removed an excluder on one hive, added a medium to another, on a beautiful day!

I'll take a look at #388. But, I doubt that I'll concur. 

They looked like locust trees from the sidewalk, but I didn't have my tree ID guide with me. Yes, there were bees on them.


----------



## Riskybizz

maybe basswoods?


----------



## WLC

What the hay. I've got to go the the store anyway.


----------



## Oldtimer

I like the new label guidelines.

But I'm a little surprised. In my country nearly all pesticides that are applied to crops already say on the label they should not be applied when plants are in bloom.

That has not been the case in the US?


----------



## Riskybizz

Have at it Oldtimer

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/


----------



## cg3

Riskybizz said:


> Have at it Oldtimer


Well, I laughed for the first time on this thread.


----------



## WLC

They're not 'Locust' trees, but they're named after Alex Lu.

The Chinese Scholartree.  

Styphnolobium japonicum Schott.

I'll keep calling em Locust trees, although I now know better.


----------



## Oldtimer

Riskybizz said:


> Have at it Oldtimer
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/


Yikes, well I didn't wade through all of it!

But it appears from one link that this labelling will only apply to neonicitinoids. As it is the job of all insecticides to kill insects, I would have thought the labelling should apply to anything that could kill a bee if applied to a flower.

Another issue is drift, ie a guy drives through his vineyard and sprays the grapes that do not have flowers. But between the rows of grapes are weeds in full bloom with bees working, weeds get coated, bees get killed.

A lot of this comes down to the common sense of the farmer, but should also be addressed on the label as standard. The label is a legal document, and breach that causes loss, is actionable.


----------



## Oldtimer

Another thought, is the obsession with neonicitiniods allowing other issues to slip through the cracks?


----------



## WLC

Like, with the FDA and USDA?

Uh, huh.


----------



## Oldtimer

Perhaps but I was thinking of other insecticide classes.


----------



## WLC

Like pyrethroids, etc. ?


----------



## sqkcrk

Oldtimer said:


> The label is a legal document, and breach that causes loss, is actionable.


If you can prove it. As Jim Doan has found out isn't as easy as it is said.


----------



## WLC

No, no ,no.

Gents, you've bought into a dead end.

You have to prove environmental contamination via translocation, like the EU did.

Forget cause and effect. It's scientifically impossible in field trials.

But, pollution, ah ha, that's the ticket.

Bees are very good at finding that.

WLC.


----------



## Oldtimer

sqkcrk said:


> If you can prove it. As Jim Doan has found out isn't as easy as it is said.


Oh yes of course, that's a given.

However some types of non bee related insecticide caused damage are more easily proven and have been successfully actioned, at least in my country. As regards bees, I think most applicators are aware that label instructions should be followed, and their training is that there may be consequences for not following the label. So having instructions on a label to protect bees, will make users aware, and will be beneficial, even if the reality is enforcement is rarely going to happen.

As a slight aside, but an interesting one, there was a case in Australia my insurer made me aware of, where a pest controller was called in to do a spider control job on the outside of a house. Immediately after he did it, it rained, washing some of the product down a drain, through pipes, and into a dam where a government agency was running a shrimp breeding program. the shrimps were a modified breed that had taken a lot of dollars to develop, and every last one of them was killed.

By painstaking forensics, they were able to trace the cause of death, and where the poison had come from, and pin it on the particular pest controller, which resulted in a successful multi million dollar claim against my insurer.

Stories like this do make people realise that even though they may get away with not following labels most of the time, they should be aware that following the label is the safer policy.


----------



## Nabber86

sqkcrk said:


> I don't know why you thought it was necessary to throw that in there.


That was not a jab at Obama and I dont want to go down that path. I was just pointing out that the EPA has won, they are taking credit, and any politician or bureaucrat with any sense will applaud and take credit too. There is nothing wrong with that.


----------



## WLC

U.S. Laws and regulations are very different than your own, or those in the EU.

Our courts have different standards as well.

It's U.S. beekeepers, 0 %, pesticide industry, 100%.

There's one particular story of treachery by a friend of Randy, that just makes my blood boil.

Jerry.


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> U.S. Laws and regulations are very different than your own,
> Jerry.


Not so much.


----------



## WLC

Come on man.

The EPA, FDA, and USDA are no longer working for the people.

Formerly good men will assess the situation, and then they'll save themselves and their families.

That's what's happening.


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Jerry.


One piece of the puzzle. Your first name is Jerry?


----------



## WLC

No.

But, that's a tale that, quite frankly, keeps repeating itself.

Beekeepers being betrayed by expert scientists, that they were relying on.

AKA: sellouts.

You don't want to know how often it has happened to U.S. beekeepers.

However, I've called them out. They know that they can't continue to do it with impunity.

It's public information.


----------



## sqkcrk

Then why did you sign that Post,

"Jerry." ?


----------



## Oldtimer

WLC said:


> Come on man.
> 
> The EPA, FDA, and USDA are no longer working for the people.


Oh I forgot, Jerry.

They are really controlled by the illuminati.


----------



## WLC

Grrrrr.


----------



## Nabber86

Oldtimer said:


> The label is a legal document, and breach that causes loss, is actionable.


Slightly pedantic, but the regulation requiring the labeling is the legal document. It's like a stop sign, the label is there to remind you not to break the law. They have numerous blanket statements in the federal code that indicate that you must follow the label when applying a pesticide, or you will suffer fines or imprisonment (reduntantly, he label says on the label that you must follow the lable). They do it this way so they do not have to amend any laws; they simply change the label as a policy measure (much easier to do). 

That's why I was pointing out the false (alarmist) use of the term lawsuit. The bee groups were not suing the EPA to remove the pesticide, they were getting ready to file an appeal to get the label changed. The EPA out-maneuvered the bees groups by changing the lable before the appeal process started and thereby avoiding the appeal process any any bad press resulting from it. They saved time, money, and now can claim that they did something heroic to help save the bees. There will be propagada, PSAs, and numerous EPA web pages devoted to prasing this feat. Anyone how thinks this is a black eye for the EPA is seriously deluding themselves. 

Oh and I won't even get into the realm of how the EPA enforces the code that is displayed on the label. OK, well maybe just a little bit. Hmmm, what are the words that I am looking for?........ Oh yeah they would be, Jack and Squat.


----------



## WLC

Bayer? Onions?

Bromenshenk?

Ring a bell Barry?

Why am I the one telling you?


----------



## sqkcrk

Jerry Hayes knows who you are?


----------



## WLC

Monsanto and Bayer know who I am.

Yes.

They don't know whether to love me, or kill me.


----------



## squarepeg

monsanto comes up with some pretty good stuff at times, like this for example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17982443


----------



## sqkcrk

WLC said:


> Monsanto and Bayer know who I am.
> 
> Yes.
> 
> They don't know whether to love me, or kill me.


So did you go to the Project Apis m conference that Kim Flottum wrote about in Bee Culture this month?


----------



## WLC

I do read Kim Flottum.

I love the guy.

My kind of beekeeper.

Great insight.


----------



## WLC

squarepeg:

I'm an advocate of AGO2 dsRNA knockdown as a pesticide.

It's not English, but it's true.

WLC.


----------



## squarepeg

thought you might be, dr. c.


----------



## WLC

I've got a PD, not PhD.

Don't call me Dr.

Look you're forgetting how this works.

I've a background in politics. I'm not a politician.

I've a background in science. I'm not a professional scientist.

I've a background in business. I'm rapping that up.

I hope to retire soon.

In my distant past, my boss was pardoned by a president. My brother's best man was pardoned by the same president, in the same year, for unrelated offenses. It's true.

Unfortunately, how can I put this? I haven't forgotten.

Is it a wonder that I know how they think?

Many of my friends were lawmen. My favorite mentor was a retired NYPD detective.

Yes, I have bees. They're an educational/research tool.

Does this begin to make sense to some of you?

I stick by my analysis of the TIME article.

A leap of faith may be in order for some of you.

However, I'm helping Randy by being so critical. He was marginalized by his current mindset.


----------



## jim lyon

Shhhhhh. I think I hear Barry coming. I'll bet he has the eraser and the padlock.


----------



## beemandan

jim lyon said:


> . I'll bet he has the eraser and the padlock.


A padded room and lock maybe?


----------



## Barry

I forgot, the Internet doesn't shut down when you go to bed! Oh well, it's obvious this thread has run its course and what a ride it's been!


----------

