# Can you please sign this petition regarding Neonicotinoids



## Billboard (Dec 28, 2014)

Only UK citizens can sign.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Are the pesticides that would be used in place of the neonicotinoids (assuming the neonicotinoids get banned) going to be _better _for the bees? :scratch:


----------



## Haraga (Sep 12, 2011)

Danpr, I will keep it short. NO.


----------



## DPBsbees (Apr 14, 2011)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Are the pesticides that would be used in place of the neonicotinoids (assuming the neonicotinoids get banned) going to be _better _for the bees? :scratch:


In short, Yes. Take a look at this article http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=5fd2b1aa990e63193af2a573d&id=845254510e&e=714d413320. I was at this conference and was neutral on neonics when it started but not when it ended. Farmers can't buy seed without them, crop yields are not higher with them, the pests they protect crops from are not around sufficiently to be an issue, the stuff only stays in the plant for something like 2 weeks, but it remains in the ground for years. I would greatly prefer an IPM attack. Monitor and treat when needed. Just like I don't treat mites for fun and don't use antibiotics "just in case".


----------



## clyderoad (Jun 10, 2012)

In short, when in doubt I don't sign anything.


----------



## JRG13 (May 11, 2012)

DPBsbees said:


> In short, Yes. Take a look at this article http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=5fd2b1aa990e63193af2a573d&id=845254510e&e=714d413320. I was at this conference and was neutral on neonics when it started but not when it ended. Farmers can't buy seed without them, crop yields are not higher with them, the pests they protect crops from are not around sufficiently to be an issue, the stuff only stays in the plant for something like 2 weeks, but it remains in the ground for years. I would greatly prefer an IPM attack. Monitor and treat when needed. Just like I don't treat mites for fun and don't use antibiotics "just in case".


That's why they were spraying worse stuff this year, more of it, with poor results since a lot of the pests are resistant. Also, saw quite a reduction in yields, especially in Canola.


----------



## Ian (Jan 16, 2003)

Wish there were an easy answer for this... Farmers are going to use chem, unless alternative is provided this issue just keeps spinning. 
Neonic seed treatments were seen as the solution to the farmer spraying problem...


----------



## FollowtheHoney (Mar 31, 2014)

Rader Sidetrack said:


> Are the pesticides that would be used in place of the neonicotinoids (assuming the neonicotinoids get banned) going to be _better _for the bees? :scratch:


Meanwhile, plans are being made for a time when perhaps bees won't be around. Scientists at Harvard have tried to make a robotic bee, while agrochemical companies are trying to develop a GM one, resistant to pesticides in the same way GM crops are meant to be resistant to herbicides. They are also touting the benefits of flupyradifurone, a new systemic pesticide that's supposed to be safer for bees because it's even more toxic, the idea being that if it kills a bee on the spot, then that bee won't transport the toxin back to the hive. But, as Doan sees it, it's not bees that will go extinct first, it's commercial beekeepers.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...at-does-it-mean-for-us-20150818#ixzz3jgdc5NXB 
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook


----------



## KiwiLad (May 18, 2015)

Danpr said:


> Neonicotinoids, especially seed treatments of imidacloprid and clothianidin on arable crops, have become of increasing concern to beekeepers and bee researchers in recent years with many of them suspecting that they may be connected to current bee declines.


Please read Randy Oliver's work (www.scientificbeekeeping.com) on this topic:
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science/
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/neonicotinoids-trying-to-make-sense-of-the-science-part-2/
http://scientificbeekeeping.com/a-review-of-dr-lus-paper-on-neonics-in-massachusetts/


----------



## aunt betty (May 4, 2015)

The farmer says, "mind your own business".
The beekeeper says, "it IS my business".
The lawyer says, "we need to go to court".
The judge says, "we need new laws".
The government says, "this hurts my head but I will try". 
The beurocrat whispers, "do this and we'll pay you".
The circle can not be broken.


----------



## HarryVanderpool (Apr 11, 2005)

Anyone pushing a ban on a chemical should have an ACCEPTABLE, PROVEN SUBSTITUTION to suggest, to even have a voice at the table, in my opinion.
And "nothing" does not qualify.
Unfortunately, we cannot BAN: aphids, bean beetles, spider mites, thrips, fruit fly's etc.....
If we want edible food on our table, pests and diseases in the field must be mitigated.
Meanwhile, credible science should be applied toward analysis of current and emerging pesticide solutions.


----------



## D Coates (Jan 6, 2006)

Danpr said:


> Please take a moment to sign this petition and thanks.


No way I'm putting my name to something that bans a product for "suspecting that (use of imidacloprid and clothianidin on arable crops) may be connected to current bee declines." Suspecting... but there's apparently no proof? If there was I'd bet you'd be linking it instead of talking about suspicions. Show me the repeatable scientifically valid test results and there'll be something to actually talk about not innuendos, suspicions, and 1/2 truths. 

This is your first post and you're cliff diving into the deep end of the pool? This indicates you're probably not even a beekeeper but someone hoping to get some signatures for your pet petition to further your agenda no matter where they come from. To me this is yet one more reason people should be cautious about signing diddle without really considering the source, agenda, and potential ramifications.


----------

