Slashdot Mirror


US Government Introduces Pollinator Action Plan To Save Honey Bees

An anonymous reader writes The White House has announced a federal strategy to reverse a decline in the number of honeybees and other pollinators in the United States. Obama has directed federal agencies to use research, land management, education and public/private partnerships to advance honeybee and other pollinator health and habitats. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Agriculture Department will lead a multi-agency task force to develop a pollinator health strategy and action plan within six months. As part of the plan, the USDA announced $8 million in funding for farmers and ranchers in five states who establish new habitats for honeybee populations.

143 comments

  1. 8 million? by Daimanta · · Score: 2

    Isn't that a rounding error for an organisation the size of the US government?

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    1. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A drop of piss in the ocean.

    2. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Useful government projects are fairly cheap for their efficacy.

      The majority of government exercises are just corporate welfare vehicles with vastly inflated budgets.

      The major problem for the modern citizen is identifying which is which.

    3. Re:8 million? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't that a rounding error for an organisation the size of the US government?

      Programs do not need to be expensive in order to be effective. As a beekeeper, I think the most effective government program would actually generate money for the government, rather than have a net cost: Farmers are required to notify the local beekeeper organization when they spray certain pesticides, but few do, and the fines, even if they get caught, are too low to matter. We should have stronger enforcement, funded by much steeper fines. There is no excuse for failing to notify. All it takes is a one minute phone call or a few clicks on a website.

    4. Re:8 million? by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > There is no excuse for failing to notify

      Of course there is: if they made the notification then you wouldn't bring your bees to pollinate their field. What happens to your bees afterwards has no effect on their profits, and the fine is an acceptable expense compared to a non-pollinated crop, so they are behaving in a perfectly rational (if short-sighted) manner.

      I agree, if the government really wants to save the bees then there's a couple of really simple options available: set the fines so high that nobody will "forget" to make the notification, or better still ban neonicitinoid use completely so that wild bee populations can make a comeback as well.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    5. Re:8 million? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Well. I'm glad you've figured it out.

      Now I can go back to reading the Huffington Post.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is how religious people actually think. PRAISE BE TO THE INVISIBLE HAND.

    7. Re:8 million? by jythie · · Score: 1

      That is a justification or explanation, but not an excuse. An excuse is something that excuses a behavior or action, and even if it is rational such a reason does not excuse failing to notify bee keepers about spraying.

    8. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing rational about short-sightedness. Stop being an apologist for assholes.

    9. Re:8 million? by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You should write into your contract that you're allowed to take samples from fields where your bees work, and that the farmer is liable for damages if something happens to your bees, you test those samples, and find the bad pesticides.

      Contract law is a lot simpler than laws to "protect nature", and since the nature in this case has an owner (you) it's not just a common resource to exploit.

      No help if neighboring farms spray that pesticide, of course.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    10. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no scientific evidence linking GM crops to this.

    11. Re:8 million? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, beekeepers will have no problem suing large agricorp farms for damages.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    12. Re:8 million? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      nor is their evidence of anything linking the deaths to anything...

      so clearly its caused by nothing....

      or the evidence hasn't been collected.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    13. Re:8 million? by tlambert · · Score: 1

      Sure, beekeepers will have no problem suing large agricorp farms for damages.

      Sure, large agricorp farms that cause damages will have an easy time bringing in crops when they are boycotted by all the beekeepers and can't get their crops pollinated.

    14. Re:8 million? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Farmers are required to notify the local beekeeper organization when they spray certain pesticides, but few do, and the fines, even if they get caught, are too low to matter. We should have stronger enforcement, funded by much steeper fines. There is no excuse for failing to notify. All it takes is a one minute phone call or a few clicks on a website.

      Thank you for injecting some sense into the conversation.

      Rather than focusing on "pollinator health" (which of course we all want), we should first be looking at reducing "pollinator poisons" that we already know to exist. Obama's approach is trying to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.

      We must stop using neonicotinoid pesticides. It's pretty much that simple. In the meantime, notification of beekeepers before spraying should be a top priority, including enforcement and fines big enough to be a deterrent.

    15. Re:8 million? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      You should write into your contract that you're allowed to take samples from fields where your bees work

      I am just a hobby beekeeper, with a couple hives in my backyard, so I don't have any contracts. But even if I did have a contract, it wouldn't matter because BEES CAN'T READ. There is nothing to prevent bees from a hive placed in a orchard from flying to an alfalfa field a mile away. They go where they please. Spraying without notification is not violating a contract, it is violating the law. Farmers are required to notify whether they have a contract with a beekeeper or not.

    16. Re:8 million? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      Sure, large agricorp farms that cause damages will have an easy time bringing in crops when they are boycotted by all the beekeepers and can't get their crops pollinated.

      Plenty of farmers don't give a crap about pollination. If I have a field of alfalfa, I am harvesting the hay, not the seeds. So in the absence of fines, I have no incentive to notify before spraying.

    17. Re:8 million? by skywire · · Score: 1

      Not a rounding error. A decimal point shifted left three places.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    18. Re: 8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama is not behind the solution, this is pesticide producers buying a distraction.

      He mmay be more of an accomplice than a patsy but blame them.

    19. Re: 8 million? by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Obama is not behind the solution, this is pesticide producers buying a distraction.

      He mmay be more of an accomplice than a patsy but blame them.

      I wasn't trying to suggest it was Obama's idea. But it's the one he has been pushing.

    20. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's business poker.

    21. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When was the last time you did something that would cost you money for someone that you weren't required to? OP's post is basic business rational, time to put your batman costume away and start understanding how the world really works.

    22. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is how religious people actually think. PRAISE BE TO THE INVISIBLE HAND."

      And that is how anti-religious bigots actually argue. Or don't, actually.

      Making shit up and sneering isn't much of an argument.

    23. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course there is: if they made the notification then you wouldn't bring your bees to pollinate their field. What happens to your bees afterwards has no effect on their profits, and the fine is an acceptable expense compared to a non-pollinated crop, so they are behaving in a perfectly rational (if short-sighted) manner.

      And then after they kill his bees, he lets other beekeepers in the area know so they know not to bring their bees to that asshole's field, and his field never sees pollination again. Or at least thats what they need to do. If there isn't a blacklist already, the GP needs to start one.

    24. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      business rational

      Its spelled "sociopathic".

    25. Re:8 million? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      It's not the farmers that are killing wild bees and butterflies, because they grow crops that actually need protection (true some of that could wait for protecting the grain when put into storage from bugs, not while it's growing in the open fields, and in the open fields supplying predators are a better natural harmony), but it's the urban sprawl idiots pushing their lawns all over the place, and keeping it pure green, all flowerless. There is simply no fucking reason to mow a lawn, let alone spray it with chemicals. It's a highly distorted sense of beauty, everyone is bankrupt, yet has the time and money for gas and mowers to waste on grascutting! Just let nature be. Leave it the fuck alone. You don't have to mow it. Let the grass grow knee high, then let a farmer cut it for free, or even sell it to him, as hay for his horses, and let him make a nice drying haystack on your "lawn" out of it. Haystacks like you see when you drive through the country side. Make some money on the bitch while sitting back and relaxing on your porch, let alone pumping money and time and effort into it, wasting it all, over your distorted sense of beauty. Money in the bank is beautiful. Bank account empty, financing a lawnmower, paying for gas, and wasting your time, is not.

    26. Re:8 million? by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      Oh, I just saw the post below. They are talking about spraying insecticides right before inviting a bee pollinator on a contract. Now that is sick, and the beekeeper has no idea his bees are getting poisoned, so it makes good financial sense for the farmer. Again, if you absolutely have to spray insecticides, wait till the bees come and go, and spray only after. But Monsanto should get into selling natural predators instead of insecticides or insecticide-making genetically engineered plants. Spiders are hard to farm like chickens, you can't keep them together because they eat each other, (the chickens only peck each other bloody when too congested above their natural sense of equilibrium population density, so they get debeaked). They should figure out at Monsanto how to farm spiders isolated from each other, in like an apartment-complex-matchbox way, and sell them to farmers to release in their fields to control bugs, instead of spraying insecticides. Spiders are gonna be like weeeeee, yo what fun! And the other insects are gonna be like warning, spiders, but at least they've dealt with spiders for hundreds of millions of years, unlike these insecticides.

      PS. When I removed a tent I had standing for almost three years out in the wooded countryside - as I never really had time to go be in it - there were all kinds of bugs that found home in it - large carpenter ants, spiders - all hiding from the constant monsoon-like rain. I was not aware it was so difficult to find a dry spot for acres in the forest, (as the same exact gang of ants found my stuff like a few acres away before, and settled into it, making my sleeping bags full of ant-smell) One of the guests I had to shake off when folding the tent was a pretty large sized (like a quarter inch), spider mother, (I'm assuming it was the female, not sure), with over a hundred tiny spider babies packed tight on her back, and they all fell off her back during the scare, unto the forest floor full of dead leaves. I was thinking about them driving home, if they have any way of finding each other again to reunite, by smell, or sight, I don't know how it'd be possible. But it shows some spiders don't each other as a default behavior when congested. But the last one of the ants I had a really hard time getting rid of, like it would keep clinging to stuff with her antlers for forever, and not let go. I accidentally had brought home one of her sisters like 2 years earlier, when I thought my sleeping bag was all clear, but obviously one got stuck in it, cuz I saw it escape and run when I put my sleeping bag in the tub, and it'd come out once every few months, all alone, then, I guess it doesn't live that long. I saw some more ants, a few of them like last year in the summer, by the garage, but they were not as big, and not alone, they were a different gang. I should have tried to catch her and take her back to her gang? Yeah good luck with that, cuz it moves really fast, and then driving well over an hour wasting all that gas just for an ant to reunite with her peers, then drive back! What a noble thought! By the way carpenter ants can turn your wooden home into sawdust pretty quickly, should your home be wooden, and them not finding a dry and warm place for themselves. That's a bit hit to the bottom line for people that pay say 50,000 for land value, then 350,000 for wooden house value on that land. Somehow such prices seem distorted, it should be the other way around, but then construction folks can't make a killing.

    27. Re:8 million? by kwbauer · · Score: 1

      "almost certain" ... "end of story"

      Which is it?

    28. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you can never be an MBA.

    29. Re: 8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ayn Rand surely knew the solution if she still lived. You know, when all bees are dead, the market will die also and then the thing has fixed itself. Charming !

    30. Re:8 million? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      An excellent idea. Assuming of course that his bees fall ill fast enough that he can tell which area caused the problem. How long does it take for neonicitinoid poisoning to become obvious, versus how long does the average pollination visit last?

      Hmm - what if is there were some relatively cheap, easy way to test a field for dangerous pesticides before releasing your bees - something like pureeing a few randomly chosen plant tips and dipping a test strip in the slurry. IIRC one of the recent "lab on a chip" technologies is a mass spectrometer - I imagine that would do the trick nicely, and could potentially be reusable indefinitely after the initial investment.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:8 million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, let's see. Yesterday, I donated some food to the local shelter. A couple weeks ago, I spent $200 on a router and overseas shipping for a guy who might be able to get OpenWRT code working on it. I buy gifts for family members on their birthdays and at Christmas. Finally, I spent a bit of time (and time is money) typing this to tell you that you're a fucking asshole for never giving anybody anything.

  2. What Timing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow, only about 15 years after beekeepers and alternative media started noticing the problem. By federal government standards that's fucking lightning fast!

    Can't wait to see what they do with health care. And whatever else these snakes slither their way into. USA used to be different. Now it's been taken over by government apologists who want government to be their mommy and daddy. These people have no idea how and why the Romans collapsed.

    1. Re:What Timing! by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

      Wow, only about 15 years after beekeepers and alternative media started noticing the problem

      Now that everybody else in the world is starting to zero-in on the solution, they want to step out in front of the parade. Typical.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:What Timing! by davester666 · · Score: 2

      At least they noticed while there are still bees.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  3. For a First Step by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?

    --
    Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    1. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      No! That's regulation.

      If honeybees were really important to anyone, the free market would take care of the problem. Since it clearly isn't doing so, I'm forced to conclude that the role of honeybees as so-called "pollinators" is just another lie perpetrated by corrupt welfare-supported "scientists" in exchange for grant money and/or to bring about their envirosocialist wet dream of sending humanity back to the preindustrial era.

    2. Re:For a First Step by iksbob · · Score: 1

      That would make sense. This however, stinks of lobbyist action.

    3. Re:For a First Step by mmell · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good luck convincing Bayer - the same wonderful people who brought you buffered aspirin. Neonicitinoids are big business - who cares if a few beekeepers are inconvenienced? There's no money in aspirin anymore, think of all the employees of Bayer.

    4. Re:For a First Step by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

      How about sex? We are suffering from two major problems. Increasing monoculture in our food and industrial crops, and a decline in pollinators. If we shifted towards more sexual reproduction in these areas, we might be able to help with both issues simultaneously.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    5. Re:For a First Step by MrEkted · · Score: 1

      http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/... The EPA is not currently banning or severely restricting the use of the neonicotinoid pesticides. The neonicotinoid pesticides are currently being re-evaluated through registration review, the EPA's periodic re-evaluation of registered pesticides to ensure they meet current health and safety standards. The EPA bases its pesticide regulatory decisions on the entire body of scientific literature, including studies submitted by the registrant, journal articles and other sources of peer-reviewed data.

      --
      Tell the moon dogs, tell the March hare
    6. Re:For a First Step by mysidia · · Score: 0

      How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?

      Yes... maybe force them to switch back to DDT and carefully restrict who can use pesticides and in what amounts and concentrations; require a permit to use agricultural pesticides, and use regulations to establish required abatements.

      For example: no applying dangerous chemicals to your yard, just for aesthetic purposes. Pesticides must only be used to protect specific food sources, human shelters from property damage, and control numbers of animals/plants that are a substantial threat to human health or safety.

      At least with DDT; it is well studied: not a carcinogen, and in sufficiently dilute concentrations does not kill bees or other beneficial wildlife, and the issues are more well-understood and can be combatted.

    7. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can try having sex in food and industrial crop areas but I don't see how thats going to help the bee population.

    8. Re:For a First Step by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?

      The worst offenders are the neonicotinoid pesticides. Europe has already put some restrictions on them. Even if they are not banned outright, it would be useful to put restrictions on their use. For instance, they should not be used on bee pollinated crops while in bloom, and a "setback" should be required even if spraying adjacent to such crops or wild/fallow areas. Notification requirements to local beekeepers before spraying already exist, but should be strengthened and enforced. It is unfortunate that neonicotinoids are so lethal to bees, because otherwise they are pretty good pesticides. They are chemically similar to nicotine. They kill insects, but have little effect on mammals (including humans), they break down quickly, and they do not bio-accumulate.

    9. Re:For a First Step by Immerman · · Score: 1

      There's a pretty massive accumulation of evidence against neonicitinoids as a primary cause for colony collapse (not the only reason, but one of the biggest) - there's a good reason they've been banned in Europe.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:For a First Step by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Sex for who? Last time I checked bee hives still reproduced sexually, and plant sex (aka pollination) is the whole purpose of importing bees to the fields. Plant monocultures might plausibly be a a bit of a problem for the bee's nutrition, but we have a mountain of evidence that one of the largest problems for bee populations is neonicitinoid-based pesticides.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Face it, if more people had sex most of today's world problems could be easily fixed.

    12. Re:For a First Step by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I can try having sex in food and industrial crop areas but I don't see how thats going to help the bee population.

      So, instead of furries, we need the fuzzies to come up to the plate?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about sex?

      No thanks, I have a headache.

    14. Re:For a First Step by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 1

      True considering we practice selective capitalism in this country.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    15. Re:For a First Step by JenovaSynthesis · · Score: 1

      They're big business because there is no incentive to use anything else.

      --
      Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch :)
    16. Re:For a First Step by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And that is why free market solutions are not enough. The self adjusting nature of markets are generally only sensitive to the two parties involved in a transaction, they react poorly to the effects of the transaction on 3rd parties. It is why free markets tend to have slavery or something functionally equivalent, it is great for owners and sellers, and the people being trafficked are not factored in.

    17. Re:For a First Step by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      For example: no applying dangerous chemicals to your yard, just for aesthetic purposes.

      That's probably a non-starter.

      I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.

    18. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bless the markets, this man is right.

    19. Re:For a First Step by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I'm glad they've been banned in Europe. It will be a perfect test. If bee populations recover--they should be banned elsewhere. If nothing changes, we'll know neonicitinoids aren't the main problem. Either way, we will have an answer.

      There's some evidence that neonicitnoids by themselves don't affect bee health--see Australia, which has healthy bees and is also a heavy user of neonicitinoids.

      Varroa infested countries might have no choice but to ban neonicitinoids, however, if the combo of the two is the prime cause of CCD.

    20. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bee is a lot like the nerd - thousands of drones all trying to get sex with the one woman that will actually have them (the queen or that one female nerd).

    21. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd mod you up if I could.

    22. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another poster suggests it's that US farmers aren't notifying beekeepers when they've used neonicotinoids, so the beekeepers release their bees on fields where it's been freshly applied and fully potent. Maybe Australia has better enforcement or a culture that encourages notification?

    23. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about banning the pesticide that's killing them off?

      It's not just pesticides. No one really knows what is causing colony collapse disorder, but all agree it is not one single cause (isn't that a contradiction?). Heck some studies have shown it to be cell phone towers creating magnetic interference that screws up their navigation home. But of course the cell phone industry lobbyists say that is just crazy talk and are actively blocking further research.

    24. Re:For a First Step by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I've noticed that the yards in my area that look the most like putting greens tend to be the most likely to have political signs on them around election time.

      Perhaps so.... on the other hand.... personal use of pesticides as a luxury item is just the sort of use that is needless destruction to the environment.

      Also... the EPA doesn't really have to answer to the voters, and since they apparently don't need to consult with congress either; I'm not entirely sure all the political signs matter.

    25. Re:For a First Step by Illserve · · Score: 2

      One word of caution about proclaiming the involvement of these pesticides in bee deaths is recent findings that these pesticides are not found in the reproductive regions of plants:

      http://entomologytoday.org/201...

      Here's another study from last year which found no link between pesticides and bee deaths:

      http://www.producer.com/daily/...

      It's a popular and appealing story, but recent data suggest that it may not be true!

    26. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the free market would take care of the problem". The free market is taking care of the problem its lobbied for tax payers money to add a honey glazing to its pork.

      umm delicious.

    27. Re:For a First Step by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      Fact check your facts. Your second link's researcher was funded by Bayer

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    28. Re:For a First Step by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Good luck convincing Bayer - the same wonderful people who brought you

      ...Zyklon B.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    29. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to check your facts. The source of the study is irrelevant. The study is either scientifically accurate or not.

    30. Re:For a First Step by guises · · Score: 1

      So sayeth the Market. Amen.

    31. Re:For a First Step by Illserve · · Score: 1

      Fact check your facts. Your second link's researcher was funded by Bayer

      You've discounted one of the linked articles (for a reason I understand but don't entirely agree with). What about the other? Does finding a reason to discount one piece of data allow you to discount all of it, in your opinion?

       

    32. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean artificial honey product.

    33. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bayer, who will see a large loss in profits if pesticides are linked to massive bee deaths, funding a study to see whether or not pesticides are killing bees... and you dont see a problem with that?

      Its like Phillip Morris funding a study to see whether or not cigarettes cause cancer, or the petroleum industry funding studies to see whether or not lead is toxic (back when all gasoline was still leaded), or the DEA funding studies to see whether or not marijuana has medical benefits. Sadly, the source of funds often taints the results; corporations are known to 'shop' around until they can find a 'scientist' who will 'produce' the conclusion they want.

    34. Re:For a First Step by jafac · · Score: 1

      lol. Also the same wonderful people who brought us Zyklon B.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    35. Re:For a First Step by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Does finding a reason to discount one piece of data allow you to discount all of it, in your opinion?

      Isn't that what you're doing by highlighting these minority view papers, ie: cherry-picking? No matter what the question you will almost certainly find a handful of papers that disagree with the consensus position, that's what is supposed to happen in Science. If you claim 95% certainity then by definition it means one in 20 papers will return a contradictory result. If you claim 100% certainty then it's not Science, right?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    36. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we had a free market, but we don't.

    37. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's funny you mention slavery because it's not part of the free market and it was propped up by the government, not the market. Also, if you look at things like the Montgomery bus boycotts you would see that it was the government forcing the busses not to take on more fares. The busses didn't give a shit what color you were, as long as you had bus fare. Your little slant is idiotic and doesn't make a bit of sense.

    38. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most fuckers on this globe would not even exist without the discoveries of German Chemical Industry. No go away, Godwin-Troll. Or read a fucking book about Chemistry and how it made massive crops possible.

    39. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The wonderful people who made YOUR miserable existence possible, because of the advanced fertilizers, pesticides,insecticides, fungicides they invented. Which make the cheap food available which gave rise to your existence, Chemistry gives, chemistry takes.

      So far, population still explodes on the discoveries of Haber, Bosch and the like.

      Now, throw yourself off the next bridge, idiot.

    40. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if they use condoms or the like while doing so. Otherweise the OPPOSITE is true.

      That applies to Africa and Asia, at least.

    41. Re:For a First Step by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Or read a fucking book about Chemistry and how it made massive crops possible.

      So-called organic farming (better called cyclic) using guilds and zero tilth actually produces more food output per acre than planting monocultures and hosing them down with chemicals; the labor cost is higher, but the environmental costs orders of magnitude lower. Now go away, Monsanto-troll.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    42. Re:For a First Step by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      its all fun and games when you have 8 billion humans to experiment on. It only takes one mistake to fuck it ALL up. Evolution has a speed limit or checks and balances to keep us alive. If we move too fast or too slow we will not survive.

    43. Re:For a First Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that France has banned neonicitinoids for one year in order to test the difference in bee hive populations during their absence. The goal is to see if bees will again thrive when neonicitinoids are absent from the environment. If I am mistaken regarding this information, than, I would recommend the banning of all insecticides that are of
      this class of organo-nicotine classification for a challenge period of two years here in the USA.

      The use of imidacloprid as a termiticide could still remain during this period of comparative evaluation for bee populations, both feral and domestic.
      Crop seeds that receive insecticide coatings.

      George Manning
      Consulting Entomologist

  4. Poor Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Every single person Obama has claimed he wanted to help has ened up far worse off then before. I feel sorry for the poor little bees about to have to endure his "helping them".

    1. Re:Poor Bees by dhj · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    2. Re:Poor Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really a [citation needed]. It's more of a [dubious - discuss].

    3. Re:Poor Bees by dhj · · Score: 1

      Good point.

  5. Habitat? Really? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Come get the )(*)!# Bees Nest in my tree please, they're doing fine. Also I thought the pesticide link was conclusive? How about banning imidacloprid and clothianidin as well?

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  6. Well, there's me. by mmell · · Score: 1, Flamebait
    I was far better off before the Affordable Healthcare Act took effect. Before, I could count on Medicare/Medicaid. Now (as a consultant with no company sponsored healthcare), those things are effectively impossible for me to get. I now have a $5,200/person deductable on a 70/30 plan with no catastrophic caps - in effect, I have absolutely no viable access to advanced medical care unless I enrich some insurance company somewhere out of my pocket (but only after I personally pay for the first five g's . . .).

    That's one citation.

    1. Re:Well, there's me. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      There are more generous plans available, if you were willing to pay for them. Basically you're complaining that you no longer have taxpayer-subsidized medical insurance as a private consultant.

      Basically though I agree - when the government decided to get involved in medical insurance they should have done it right. As long as the R's were obviously not willing to compromise even with the D's basically offering them their own plan from a few years earlier, the D's should have forced through a proper solution and socialized medicine. Instead we get a windfall for insurance companies and don't address the problems in hospitals at all. And so we continue to pay 3-5x as much for medical care as in most civilized countries while getting worse results.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    2. Re:Well, there's me. by mmell · · Score: 1

      I was unemployed one month ago. Thankfully, I didn't suffer any issues requiring medical assistance.

    3. Re:Well, there's me. by stoploss · · Score: 0

      I am in favor of socialized medicine because I recognize US medicine has been irrevocably socialized for decades, the majority wants it that way, and therefore the free market approach isn't on the table. I prefer socialized medicine because I want to reduce the taxes I am paying for healthcare.

      Anyway, I wanted to point out that the public option or single payer was never a viable alternative when the Democrats ramrodded Obamacare through Congress. There were too many conservative Democrats who wouldn't vote in favor of that (remember that every last Democratic senator's vote was required). That's why Obamacare turned into a pork barrel wishlist to buy moderate/conservative Democrat votes.

      It's also why, for example, Ben Nelson (D-NE), the last holdout whose vote was bought with the "Cornhusker kickback", was forced to retire after decades in Congress and was replaced by a Republican. He wasn't the only one.

      Politics is the art of the possible, and Obamacare was a bridge too far for many of these Democratic senators.

    4. Re:Well, there's me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know why you were modded Flamebait because this is a legitimate problem with the ACA, and I'm sorry that you're stuck without health insurance. It's a terrible place to be. But if you're stuck in the "doughnut hole" where you don't qualify for medicaid but can't afford your premiums, it's probably because your state legislature decided to cancel the recommended medicaid expansions. Several states (mostly red states) have been doing that to cripple the ACA and discredit Obama. Of course, it is the little people like us who will suffer because of their petty political bickering. Just remember this when you are at the ballot box for the state legislature in the fall.

    5. Re:Well, there's me. by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      The new medical system is an experiment. It is designed to rob the health care system and make the people pay for it. There is no room for insurance companies (bookies) in a field as complex as medicine. Insurance companies will turn it into an unsustainable system, like it did to our transportation systems.

    6. Re:Well, there's me. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >There is no room for insurance companies (bookies) in a field as complex as medicine.

      I agree. Unfortunately the insurance companies have basically been in control for decades, all that's changed is that you are no longer allowed to game the system by getting medical care without having insurance or any other way to pay for it. Basically we had (really stupid) socialized medicine for the least fortunate, and now we've replaced it with socialized medical insurance instead. Theoretically it should be a bit cheaper since the poor can actually get to the doctor before their condition becomes so immediately life-threatening that the hospital is not allowed to turn them away, all that remains to be seen is if those savings credit to anyone other than the insurance companies. The new minimums on medical payouts as a percentage of total income might even encourage that to happen.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:Well, there's me. by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      To be trapped in this early stage of evolution is rather frustrating. After 4 billion years of evolution I would of thought that those genetically inclined to con or lie would have been weeded out of the gene pool by now, instead of being the top dog on the survival of the fittest chart. The laws of conservation must be wrong. How is it possible to take so much energy out of the medical industry and give it to a bunch of bookies that cant understand the importance of an oath Do No Harm. If one practices that oath they will soon understand how evolution works and that we all steal energy from each other in order to keep evolving. The trick is to be able to understand how evolution works and find ways to conserve energy for the next generations as well as your own. The best way to conserve energy in this early stage of evolution is to improve the health of every person without having used any form of prejudice or discrimination to choose who gets medical care. All forms of medical care should be free to everyone unless you are the type of person that needs cosmetic surgery in order to increase your fake ego or to con people.

    8. Re:Well, there's me. by Immerman · · Score: 1

      You seem to be operating under the illusion that evolution has some sort of value or direction. The only goal it has ever had is "make as many great-grand-babies as possible" (using 3 generations of progeny as a stand-in to capture subtler secondary effects). Social responsibility certainly has a place, as a strong society will improve the reproductive odds for almost everyone, but lying and selfishness is also unlikely to go away since while it does have social costs, the benefits to the perpetrator more than make up for it for their own progeny.

      As for energy "stealing" - that's sort of built into the system unless you're a plant or a chemovore - all other life must get energy by consuming other living things - humans are nothing special. And even plants and chemovores "steal" energy by out-competing each other for the same limited energy resources.

      Now getting away fro the ridiculousness of trying to apply evolutionary principles to a society, you raise some other interesting issues.
      > All forms of medical care should be free to everyone
      Really? We live in the real world bounded by resource limitations, we can't do everything. There's plenty of situations where a few million dollars worth of medical care will extend your life by a few months, but that much money could buy a *lot* more social good spent elsewhere. An extreme case to be sure, but it illustrates that a line must be drawn someplace.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    9. Re:Well, there's me. by lazy+genes · · Score: 0

      There would be more resources right now if we had a society that was healthy enough to make the decisions that are needed to keep 8 billion of us alive. The healthier we all are, the better the decisions we will be able to make and the more resources we will be able to save. It is not that wise to care about the people that will be living on the earth 300 years from now. Some of us have no choice.

  7. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's under 9,000,000!

  8. Free market solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ensuring enough bees for pollination to work is just another symptom of overreaching government interventions. First there is no proof that honey bees are needed or even useful for pollination. Entomologists are just pretending the science is settled in order to get more grant money. Entomologists should get a real job then go on bug watching trips during their holidays at their own expense. Second, the need for honey bees is best provided through a free market solutions. Entrepreneurs could easily breed those bees and tame them. If pollination in an area is needed, then people could contract those entrepreneurs who would have their bees go pollinate the areas which were paid for. The entrepreneurs would obviously instruct the bees not to pollinate areas that are not under contract.

    1. Re:Free market solution by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you are being serious or sarcastic.

    2. Re:Free market solution by rochrist · · Score: 1

      Pretty sure it was excellent sarcasm.

    3. Re:Free market solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was sarcasm. Maybe I should have made it even more ridiculous. Or add emoticons.

    4. Re:Free market solution by sir-gold · · Score: 1

      The only reason I wasn't sure was because I have met some pretty extreme libertarian science-deniers that really do think this way.

      Their belief is that the government just makes up the science as an excuse to control the populace. (they also think jet contrails are full of mind-control poison)

    5. Re:Free market solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Your sarcasm is hard to detect as this part:

      If pollination in an area is needed, then people could contract those entrepreneurs who would have their bees go pollinate the areas which were paid for.

      does happen in reality. Farmers pay beekeepers to move hives to their plantations while their trees/fields are in flower. As there is enough food available on their doorstep the bees don't have much reason to travel far distances to some leeching neighbor's plantations.

    6. Re:Free market solution by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      Beware Poe's law.

    7. Re:Free market solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science deniers wouldn't have known the word "entomologist" ;)

  9. In totalitarian USA... by Jorge666 · · Score: 1

    Even bees carry NSA backdoors.

  10. Will this do? by mmell · · Score: 1
  11. Re:Habitat? Really? by PPH · · Score: 1

    No! No! Leave them there. You are missing the point of the grant.

    You need to find out how to apply for a part of that $8 million for providing habitat.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  12. Ban the bee killing pesticides!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ban the bee killing pesticides!!

  13. obeemacare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, Conservatives unilaterally oppose this new so-called "obeemacare".

  14. Save the Honey Bees by hackus · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeah, introduce foreign proteins and compounds into food crops and then wonder why dozens of birds, honey bees and other animals are on huge declines.

    I got an idea, put Monsanto and all these other GMO "I wanna rule the worlds food production" companies and make THEM PAY to restore the honey bees, birds and other species they destroy through pollution of destructive genetic engineering of our biosphere.

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
    1. Re:Save the Honey Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GMO's have absolutely nothing to do with this.

    2. Re:Save the Honey Bees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit.......they are 100% responsible

  15. Farm Subsidies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gives whole new meaning for welfare...

  16. Re:Habitat? Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well if the bees die off we all starve

    So instead of just throwing are hands in the air and saying fuck it, i dont know...we could try things and see if they stop dying off. Otherwise, plant life will die off...of course knowing this means you got to know a little bit about science, you know, that liberal stuff.

  17. nicotine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got bees, and I smoke.
    I bbq also.

    I plant honyesuckle and they come
    I plant catnip and they come
    I plant Oregano and they come
    I plant tomatoes and they come
    I Plant peppers and they come.

    Black bees, Yellow Bees, Yellowjackets (yuck), flies

    Already got my first Squash!

  18. Cap and trade by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's algore? We need to create a bee honey cap and trade market where we tax the heck out of everyone and let them trade bees.

    Finding a solution is the problem.

  19. Re:Obeema the beekiller by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  20. 8 million too much by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Rich farmers and ranchers already get huge government subsidies. Why should we pay them any more at all?

    If farmers need honeybees, they will pay bee keepers for them. If there's a shortage of bees, farmers will pay more. Seeking profit, bee keepers will expand their hives to produce more bees.

    No government meddling and no government money is needed. Let some rich guys pay their own money to solve their own problems for once.

    1. Re:8 million too much by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Rich farmers and ranchers already get huge government subsidies. Why should we pay them any more at all?

      If farmers need honeybees, they will pay bee keepers for them. If there's a shortage of bees, farmers will pay more. Seeking profit, bee keepers will expand their hives to produce more bees.

      Sorry, even Ayn Rynd cannot produce hives of dead bees. The pollination process is where they are getting doesd with what kills them.

      The problem is after the first field of nicotinid sprayed crops, the bees are toast. Your solution appears to be raising a single (flock?) of bees to be sacrificed on every field. The timing of pollination is pretty important, so there would need to be armies of pollinator companies, that only provide their service to a couple farmers. They would have to depreciate the capital equipment costs for only a few fields for all of their equipment. Those tractor trucks are pretty expensive. Also - no honey.

      Not much profit in this endeavor, and turning bees into little Kamikazi pilots is pretty distasteful at best.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  21. Actually, there's evidence. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Actually, there's evidence.

    http://www.triplepundit.com/20...

    Of course, don't let that stop you.

    1. Re:Actually, there's evidence. by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      And in what way does that contradict my initial statement?

      Oh wait, it supports it. thanks for backing me up...

      please support my position while implying it contradicts me... it funny.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  22. Citation granted. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Citation please.
    How about not just assuming it's pesticides?

    Citation granted.

    http://www.triplepundit.com/20...

  23. Score:1, Flamebait by mmell · · Score: 1
    Hey, he asked for a citation. I provided one. I suppose the Jackass party's astroturfers have mod points today.

    *Sigh*. I was even careful not to call it Obamacare - although it does sorta make you wonder exactly which political party/lobby he belongs to, doesn't it?

    1. Re: Score:1, Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A single example does not prove every person, though in this case, a single counterexample will disprove the absolute.

      I can now get Medicaid thanks to Obama.

    2. Re:Score:1, Flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who defends Obama after this last week is so partsian they are not worth talking to. He has shown himself to be the absolute worst president in all of US history by any measure you can come up with. I'm actually a bit shocked anyone is defending him now, not even the Democrats in Congress are willing to say he is doing a good job on anything.

      Ukrane invaded, he can do nothing.
      Iraq disintegrating, he can do nothing and proposed to team up with Iran. Really?
      Iran making nukes, he can do nothing.
      People not noticing the "recovery", he can do nothing.
      IRS harrasses people, loses 2 years of email for every person requested from Congress, and "not a smidgin of corruption" is his comment. Really?

      Its become a joke, and if you still support him, you really should question if you should be following politics at all.

  24. Can I get whatever you're smoking? by mmell · · Score: 1

    (n/t)

  25. America should do nothing for now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The EU, a more regulatory aggressive body, banned Neonicotinoid pesticides about a year ago. The EU has probably already banned some other stuff as well. The EU will find out in a few years if it makes a difference or not.

    Meanwhile, Obama, and 45 governors, give us a new "Pollinator Health Task Force", whose efforts include "a public education campaign to teach people about ways they can help pollinators in their own communities."

  26. "Land Management" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's french for "land grabs."

  27. Re:Habitat? Really? by Virtucon · · Score: 1

    Do I have to wear a jacket with question marks all over it to get the grant? Where's my government cheese?

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  28. Stop Monsanto and help bees. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Roundup probably killed more bees then we could count.

  29. 'Polinator action plan' by kheldan · · Score: 1

    Isn't that what got Clinton in so much trouble?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  30. Modern agriculture says Spiel Tot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So. It's been 5 years since I saw a wild honeybee in north carolina's appalachian mountain region. They're dying (not disputed). Local farmers haven't made honey in 2-3 years now (not disputed by my local market sources/nearby county fairs). I'ld suspect 3 with some mislabeling/fraud if we further analyzed it.

    Colony collapse is here in my state. I read the comments it's not nicotinonoids directly, but rather inadvertently as a form of the equivalent to AIDS for bees that is destroying them. Organic, modern, it doesn't matter. We're killing bees. Flies fill the niche for some species of angiosperms, but not any/many of the commercially viable ones.

    Just because a product is labelled organic doesn't mean it isn't poisonous to wildlife, pollinators, and/or your family. Modern pesticides are VX/nerve gas based, but there's a lot of poisonous compounds naturally occurring.

    I don't use any pesticides on my garden or plants, which results in staggering losses, but at least I'm not directly causing a pandemic. Losses exceed 70% without any. support true organics. If a bug doesn't crawl out of it it's toxic, poisonous, and the precursor to a global food shortage that will happen in the next 20 years. (so screw the bankers, eventually anyone with land and something to eat will name the prices.)

  31. What about me? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    I could use some honeybees to pollinate my girlfriend's garden. If the USDA is handing out hives, I'll take one!

  32. This plan sounds like crap by EdwardFurlong · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it will pretty much do nothing but give out money to people who really don't need it.

  33. Just let the bees die by Fly+Ricky+-+The+Wine · · Score: 1

    Then justice will actually be served when even the corporate leaders starve

  34. Native bees by gymell · · Score: 1

    Native bees are actually better pollinators than non-native, imported honey bees. You don't have to wait for the government to do something in order to help them, you can do something right now in your own back yard. Simply add plants native to your area and the pollinators will come! These aren't usually available at mainstream nurseries, so seek out nurseries specializing in native species. Native insects rely on native plants. The typical suburban yard is basically a dead zone when it comes to inviting any pollinators, with all the chemicals, invasive and exotic non-native plants that people use in their landscaping. I've been on a 7 year journey in my own back yard to eliminate invasive species and replace with natives. It's been a huge learning experience as I am not a knowledgeable gardener. One of the first things I noticed right away was that suddenly there were so many bees!

  35. Government Solution to a Simple Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Typical Government response. Create a huge bureaucracy where none is needed.

    You want to solve the honey bee problem? Ban pesticides.

  36. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've got no honeybees, nothing but native pollinators, and no problems.

    You know, the /. teabaggers and Ayn Rand drones are idiots, but they aren't entirely wrong - the government shouldn't be spending money on stuff like this. As several others here have pointed out, you could generate income for the government, instead of taking from the taxpayer, and achieve the same goals.

    Penalize the corporate farms that are fucking up, instead of handing out more greenwashed corporate welfare.

  37. Hey I got a crazy idea. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's see what happens in Europe this year! They banned the neo-nic pesticides and if their bee population starts to rebound let's try that. While correlation doesn't mean causation it certainly is a good place to start.

    Oh but what about all those campaign donations by large chemical companies? Oh we can't do anything to their products because large corporations would never lie about safety to make a buck ......

  38. Is it GMO corn, fruit and vegetables killing bees? by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

    The corn has nicotine in it's design so as to keep insects away. Similar approaches for other vegetables and fruit. Bees come, they are mutated, and there is no reproduction. Ergo, there is much much reduced crop fertilization.

    So, where losses were low due to insects, they are now truly low due to killing the insects that did the pollination. Time to reconsider GMO and it's cost benefits, leaving aside health issues.

    And I bet if in-depth research was performed, there would be an argument against GMO foods.

    --
    Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
  39. Bee travel and poison by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    The US administration should rather curtail the rampant use of poison that kills bees and also strictly regulate if not even prohibit bee travel. Bees are shipped across the country for thousands of miles causing tremendous stress to the bees and playing a role in the drastic decline. As so often, the US should look at Europe where many countries added bees to the list of protected animals, basically outlawing the killing of bees. Such straight forward ideas will not work out in the US. They are cutting into the profits of chemical and trucking companies and since that is not pro-business and not cutting taxes it is instantly anti-american, socialist, and liberal hogwash. Besides that, all the food comes from supermarkets...so what do bees have to do with it?