<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial" text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2>From The Daily Green, 12/10/07</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><A
href="http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/bees/pesticides-bees-66121001"><FONT
size=2>http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/bees/pesticides-bees-66121001</FONT></A></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>Pay Beekeepers When Pesticides Kill Their Bees</STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>A Fund Could Compensate for Poisoned
Bees</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><EM>By Kim Flottum</EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Pesticides don’t kill bees. People kill bees.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>It’s the eye of the CCD Storm and things are quiet at the
moment, again. The rush to the colony collapse disorder research deadline was
last week, so now those who submitted grant proposals sit and wait for USDA to
make its Solomon decision on who gets the $4 million. Unlike Solomon, USDA
initially said that only one proposal will be good enough and the rest can
starve. We’re not sure how only one can be good before all have been read. But
we’re not in the decider’s seat then, are we? The decision comes in
February.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And late last week the Senate finally cut loose their version
of the Farm Bill which, like the version in the house, has $86 million for "bee
stuff," as one reporter put it. But there the two bills diverge. One, the less
traveled, has changes afoot for commodity spending and less for bees, we’re
told. The other, more traveled, keeps commodities alive and well for the time
being but we’re not sure how much for bees. It’ll be a couple of weeks before
those two paths emerge from the woods as one.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>But even this bee stuff has some overhead it has to pay for.
There’s all those USDA Bee Labs out there that need to keep the lights on and
the scientists paid. And some amount of money needs to go to other bee research
just for balance. So how much for CCD? Time, congress and good lobbyists will
tell.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>So in the mean time another little problem comes our way. This
one though isn’t new, isn’t exciting, and isn’t nearly as glamorous as CCD. It
has however been implicated as part of the CCD problem, and some beekeepers seem
to think it’s all of the CCD problem. Researchers are reluctant to agree, but
then if CCD were simply a Pesticide problem, what would there be for them to
do?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=2>Insecticide (n.) A Chemical That Kills
Insects</FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>Pesticides. The insect control agents pest control managers
routinely use to protect their crops from munching beetles, aphids, root worms
and other nasties. Honey bees are insects and when insecticides and honey bees
come in contact ... honey bees lose. Every time. Over the many years that
insecticides have been used – from pre-DDT days to today – beekeepers and
applicators (whether the farmers who own the land and the crop or those they
hire to apply these chemicals) have bumped heads on misapplication, careless
application, or flagrant abuse of these poisons. Legislators have, usually with
some reluctance, regulated the use of these chemicals over these same years in
an effort to offer protection to honey bees, other pollinators and, incidentally
– you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>These same legislators, with even more reluctance, have been
responsible for oversight of these chemicals, their application and the people
who apply them. Over time labels have been written that have the force of law
behind them that, when followed, should protect honey bees, wild pollinators and
other non-target organisms ... and you. And, when not followed, should have the
force of law behind them to punish law-breakers for killing things not meant to
be killed. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>You may think this somewhat overblown, but consider this: In
one unlawful spray event on sweet corn in Wisconsin several years ago, one
beekeeper’s entire outfit was killed. All 474 colonies died in a single
afternoon. That beekeeper was out of business, his equipment contaminated with
poison so he could not use it again, and the applicator ... the applicator wan
never apprehended, never punished, never had to answer for his sins, was not, in
fact, even pursued. This is not unique by any stretch of the imagination.
Applicators spray, bees die and those in charge ... the state departments of
agriculture, and ultimately the federal EPA ... move too slowly or not at all to
enforce these laws with any teeth. Corporate America holds as much sway in the
pasture and bean field as anywhere else. And the little guy pays
again.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>A recent proposal may rectify that. The nuts and bolts of it
are that these same chemical companies pay some amount of money, based on the
amount of toxic chemicals they sell, into a fund. The money is used to
compensate beekeepers and others who have been harmed by careless, illegal or
stupid agricultural spray incidents. No one is punished, no one is blamed, and
no one is at fault. Of course the chemical companies deny responsibility ...
it’s the applicators ... and say they shouldn’t be shouldered with this cost,
which in turn will slide down hill to the farmer, who is responsible in the
first place. In the end, those who spray, pay. The goal is, be careful and these
chemicals won’t cost as much. Be careless and you’ll pay through the
nose.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2>And while scientists go back and forth on whether CCD is a
virus, a nutritional problem, a new and exotic pesticide problem, or a new and
dangerous disease, perhaps we can finally take this other age-old problem off
the stress table and study what’s really going on.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>
<BR>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial" text=#000000 bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT
size=1>______________________________________________________</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><STRONG>The Xerces Society for Invertebrate
Conservation</STRONG></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=1>The Xerces Society is an international
nonprofit organization that </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=1>protects wildlife through the conservation of
invertebrates and their </FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=1>habitat. </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT
size=1>To </FONT></FONT><FONT face=Arial><FONT size=1>join the Society, make a
</FONT></FONT><FONT size=1>contribution</FONT><FONT size=1>, </FONT><FONT
size=1>or read about our </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>work, </FONT><FONT size=1>please visit </FONT><FONT size=1><A
href="http://www.xerces.org/">www.xerces.org</A>.</FONT></DIV></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Matthew Shepherd</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Senior Conservation Associate</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>4828 SE Hawthorne Boulevard, Portland, OR 97215,
USA</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Tel: 503-232 6639 Cell: 503-807 1577 Fax: 503-233
6794</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=1>Email: </FONT><A href="mailto:mdshepherd@xerces.org"><FONT
size=1>mdshepherd@xerces.org</FONT></A><FONT size=1> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2><FONT
size=1>______________________________________________________</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2> </DIV></FONT></BODY></HTML>