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.

75 of 143 comments (clear)

  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 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.

    2. 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.
    3. 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!
    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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!
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

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

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

      Which is it?

    17. 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.
  2. 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 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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!
    10. 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 :)
    11. 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 :)
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.

    15. 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.

    16. 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!

    17. 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
    18. 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.'"
    19. Re:For a First Step by guises · · Score: 1

      So sayeth the Market. Amen.

    20. 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?

       

    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.'"
  3. 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"
  4. 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 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.
    4. 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.
  5. 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)
  6. Re:Poor Bees by dhj · · Score: 1

    Good point.

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

    Even bees carry NSA backdoors.

  8. Will this do? by mmell · · Score: 1
  9. 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.
  10. 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.

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

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

  12. 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!
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Citation granted. by tlambert · · Score: 1

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

    Citation granted.

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

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

    Pretty sure it was excellent sarcasm.

  17. 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?

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

    (n/t)

  19. 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)

  20. 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"
  21. Re:Free market solution by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

    Beware Poe's law.

  22. '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!
  23. 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!

  24. 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.

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

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

  26. 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!

  27. 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
  28. 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?