# Interesting DC editorial countering the pesticide CCD hysteria the media loves



## winevines (Apr 7, 2007)

delete


----------



## ForrestB (May 26, 2013)

> Adult bees hatch in less than two weeks.


Well, so much for a well researched article.









It is true the issue has been hyped, but the article's clear implication that there has never been any problem is patentlly false.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Well, it is The Washington Times after all. What do you expect?


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Some errors in the article but I agree with it's basic premise. Here's the link since the op withdrew it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/may/26/editorial-bad-news-for-bee-busybodies/


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

winevines said:


> delete


What kind of regret karla? The Washington Times has a certain bent, surprise, surprise, and reporters get facts mixed up all of the time. Mistakes happen. The article does bring public attention on the plight of bees and beekeepers. That's a good thing. Even poorly reported publicity is publicity and publicity is a good thing. So, why regret?


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Guys It does not look like the Washington Times Is the only thing with a certain bent surprise surprise sqkcrk.
Johno


----------



## winevines (Apr 7, 2007)

sqkcrk said:


> What kind of regret karla? The Washington Times has a certain bent, surprise, surprise, and reporters get facts mixed up all of the time. Mistakes happen. The article does bring public attention on the plight of bees and beekeepers. That's a good thing. Even poorly reported publicity is publicity and publicity is a good thing. So, why regret?


I read it quickly and liked the focus that pesticides aint it... 
but then i realized it did not even mention mites or viruses, etc. and said we were all just fine with up to 20% loss. Even though I am in the mid Atlantic, I don't know this paper or it's political bent.


----------



## tomkat (Apr 27, 2014)

The mass media is corrupt period.
Reports by the government that bees are not endanger, one graft I saw a while back show no increase in the number of bees in the past 20 years. Maybe a slight increase. 
Personally I think 20% decline is way off the mark.
My own loss was 100%


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

johno said:


> Guys It does not look like the Washington Times Is the only thing with a certain bent surprise surprise sqkcrk.
> Johno


lol johno. I don't hide my leanings. I grew up outside of Washington when the two newspapers were The Post and The Star. Mom and Dad subscribed to The Star and I delivered it in our neighborhood for two or three years. But it went belly up. After a while my parents subscribed to the more Conservative Post. Now The Washington Times is the more Conservative paper in town. Times change.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

tomkat said:


> The mass media is corrupt period.
> Reports by the government that bees are not endanger, one graft I saw a while back show no increase in the number of bees in the past 20 years. Maybe a slight increase.
> Personally I think 20% decline is way off the mark.
> My own loss was 100%


You do realize that your own loss is anecdotal, not representative, don't you?

I was surprised to hear that what has been found by Bee Informed is that this past Winter's losses are lower than previous years losses. I figured that the long hard Winter would have panned out differently. Shows what I know.


----------



## Cedar Hill (Jan 27, 2009)

Maybe the journalist took some of his inspiration from the report "Honey production - 2013" in Bee Culture pp. 16-18 OMTCW


----------



## johno (Dec 4, 2011)

Besides the media in 'Worshington' DC some of the results of polling or questionnaire led research are dependent on the questions asked ie garbage in garbage out. As some lady was professed to say 'I can see Russia from my backyard' I am about 100 miles south east of Washington but on a clear morning I swear I can smell the corruption from DC. 
Johno


----------



## peterloringborst (Jan 19, 2010)

> I was surprised to hear that what has been found by Bee Informed is that this past Winter's losses are lower than previous years losses.


I think the main reason was change in the way the numbers are calculated. As you know, some beekeepers lose a lot of bees in fall, which doesn't count as winter loss. Then many increase in spring which may complete offset previous losses. So it depends on what you mean by loss, how you measure it and when. 50 years ago it was common to cull substandard hives in the fall. Now, so many hives crash in the fall from varroa beekeepers try to overwinter everything they have left. 

I don't think anybody really has a handle on what is going on, although I credit BeeInformed for trying. 

PLB


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

This isn't one of those things like, "There are fools, dang fools, and statisticians.", is it?


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

I came across some of my old notebooks from when I operated a 2,000 colony operation in central Minnesota from the late 70's through the late 80's. We wintered most of our bees on location in those years in double deeps, usually replacing winter losses by spring nixing and occasional packages. I am seeing consistent winter losses from 25 to 40%. Some would call those losses unsustainable. It should be noted, however, that I'm still in business.


----------



## Keith Jarrett (Dec 10, 2006)

jim lyon said:


> It should be noted, however, that I'm still in business.


What..... how did that happen?

P.S. bees on the road to RJ. Still laughing over that one...... really wondering what my name is back their? lol


----------



## jim lyon (Feb 19, 2006)

Keith Jarrett said:


> What..... how did that happen?
> 
> P.S. bees on the road to RJ. Still laughing over that one...... really wondering what my name is back their? lol


:lpf: Best of luck to ya and be sure to check in when you are in the area. Your name? Hmmmm. I'll have to ask around. We've all been called a few you know.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

No, of course CCD actually happened. I am unhappy with the way it has been hijacked by special interest groups which strike me as largely anti-science (I actually read one telling me the other day that varroa mites, which we've been dealing with for decades, are a made-up threat invented by Monsanto to distract from the fact that neonicotinoids are killing all the bees; I couldn't believe what I was reading), and I'm unhappy that pesticides get 100% of the publicity at the expense of the multitude of other contributing factors; but I'm not unhappy to the point of historical revisionism where I'm going to pretend that the losses which have been reported since 2006 were _completely made up_ or didn't represent anything abnormal; that's crazy talk.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

> but I'm not unhappy to the point of historical revisionism where I'm going to pretend that the losses which have been reported since 2006 were _completely made up_ or didn't represent anything abnormal;


But it's clear that it wasn't caused by neonics.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

Cam,
You can't convince some people otherwise. There is too much emotional investment. It's feelings, not knowledge. Religion, not science. You can't fight it.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

sqkcrk said:


> Cam,
> You can't convince some people otherwise. There is too much emotional investment. It's feelings, not knowledge. Religion, not science. You can't fight it.


:thumbsup:


----------



## WLC (Feb 7, 2010)

Mark:

You've got it wrong. It's politics. 

You're on the wrong side of the fence.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Until I see some proof I'll stay there.


----------



## melliferal (Aug 30, 2010)

camero7 said:


> But it's clear that it wasn't caused by neonics.


But the article doesn't stop at "it wasn't caused by neonics", the article says _nothing unusual happened at all_, which is false.


----------



## camero7 (Sep 21, 2009)

Well, I read it and it said there was "confusion" about the losses which is absolutely true. Some report huge losses in the almonds this spring but many beekeepers report no major problems. It is also true that the numbers of bee hives in the US have remained pretty static. Read it several times and I couldn't find the quote "_nothing unusual happened at all". _Remember this article was mainly about last winter's loss nationwide. and the status of bees in the US. I don't disagree that there was CCD, but many beekeepers had losses from other causes and blamed it on CCD just like some blame neonics now. I believe the main cause of losses is PPBK. I know that's my problem with my losses last winter.


----------



## sqkcrk (Dec 10, 2005)

WLC said:


> Mark:
> 
> You've got it wrong. It's politics.
> 
> You're on the wrong side of the fence.


 Yeah, like that never happened before. :applause:


----------



## Deadeye351 (Jun 15, 2010)

Bottom line is somebody is gonna get a pocket full of $$$$$$ to Study this.... Nothing good shall come from it.


----------



## justoutthere (Jul 13, 2014)

Look at the BIP latest.


----------

