Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

US Government Introduces Pollinator Action Plan To Save Honey Bees

samzenpus posted about 4 months ago | from the won't-somebody-please-think-of-the-bees? dept.

The Almighty Buck 143

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.

cancel ×

143 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

8 million? (2)

Daimanta (1140543) | about 4 months ago | (#47292999)

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

Re:8 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293019)

A drop of piss in the ocean.

Re:8 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293023)

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.

Re:8 million? (5, Insightful)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47293089)

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.

Re:8 million? (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47293149)

> 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.

Re:8 million? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#47293297)

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.

Re:8 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293471)

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

Re:8 million? (3, Interesting)

SydShamino (547793) | about 4 months ago | (#47293593)

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.

Re:8 million? (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#47293757)

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

Re:8 million? (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 4 months ago | (#47293887)

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.

Re:8 million? (1)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47294351)

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.

Re:8 million? (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47294335)

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.

Re:8 million? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47293983)

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.

Re: 8 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294523)

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.

Re: 8 million? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 4 months ago | (#47294707)

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.

Re:8 million? (-1, Redundant)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#47293223)

Its actually a lot for bee keepers.

And really the whole 'honey bees are dying' thing is massively overhyped.

Some bees in some areas are dying off in huge numbers... and its almost certain that it involves either pesticides or some of the GM crops that interfere with insects.

End of story.

Will the over use of some pesticides or GM crops cause bees to become extinct? no. Obviously not. And anyone that suggests otherwise is a fuckwit.

To the contrary, what it means is that farmers, agro business, pesticide companies, and GM seed engineers need to be more careful about how they deploy pest control so they don't hurt bees.

If they hurt the bees it means bees die and that increases the costs of hiring apiaries to supply bees given that the farms keep killing off their colonies.

So it becomes at worst a cost calculation.

What's more expensive... going light on the pesticide and paying a reasonable fee for pollination. Or going heavy on the pesticide and consequently either paying more or not being able to get any bees at all for the crop.

Its a no brainer. They just need to be more careful with their pesticides. End of story... calm down you chicken little asshats.

Re:8 million? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47293275)

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

Now I can go back to reading the Huffington Post.

Re:8 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293293)

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

Re:8 million? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293747)

There is no scientific evidence linking GM crops to this.

Re:8 million? (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#47293763)

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

so clearly its caused by nothing....

or the evidence hasn't been collected.

Actually, there's evidence. (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 4 months ago | (#47293901)

Actually, there's evidence.

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

Of course, don't let that stop you.

Re:Actually, there's evidence. (1)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 4 months ago | (#47294037)

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.

Can I get whatever you're smoking? (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47294071)

(n/t)

8 million too much (1)

Kohath (38547) | about 4 months ago | (#47293899)

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.

Re:8 million? (1)

skywire (469351) | about 4 months ago | (#47294445)

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

What Timing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293007)

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.

Re:What Timing! (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 4 months ago | (#47293161)

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.

Re:What Timing! (2)

davester666 (731373) | about 4 months ago | (#47293761)

At least they noticed while there are still bees.

For a First Step (4, Insightful)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | about 4 months ago | (#47293021)

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

Re:For a First Step (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293059)

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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293475)

Bless the markets, this man is right.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293661)

I'd mod you up if I could.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294489)

"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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294971)

You mean artificial honey product.

Re:For a First Step (1)

guises (2423402) | about 4 months ago | (#47294743)

So sayeth the Market. Amen.

Re:For a First Step (1)

iksbob (947407) | about 4 months ago | (#47293061)

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

Re:For a First Step (1)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | about 4 months ago | (#47293311)

True considering we practice selective capitalism in this country.

Re:For a First Step (3, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47293075)

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.

Re:For a First Step (1)

JenovaSynthesis (528503) | about 4 months ago | (#47293313)

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

Re:For a First Step (4, Insightful)

jythie (914043) | about 4 months ago | (#47293317)

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.

Re:For a First Step (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 4 months ago | (#47294545)

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

...Zyklon B.

Re:For a First Step (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293083)

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

Re:For a First Step (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47293165)

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.

Re:For a First Step (1)

Moridineas (213502) | about 4 months ago | (#47293501)

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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293881)

Another poster [slashdot.org] 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?

Citation granted. (1)

tlambert (566799) | about 4 months ago | (#47293905)

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

Citation granted.

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

Re:For a First Step (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 4 months ago | (#47293107)

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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293157)

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

Re:For a First Step (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 months ago | (#47293291)

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?

Re:For a First Step (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47293189)

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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293243)

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

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293301)

How about sex?

No thanks, I have a headache.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293541)

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).

Re:For a First Step (1)

MrEkted (764569) | about 4 months ago | (#47293115)

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/... [epa.gov] 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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#47293151)

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.

Re:For a First Step (1)

Waffle Iron (339739) | about 4 months ago | (#47293401)

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.

Re:For a First Step (1)

mysidia (191772) | about 4 months ago | (#47294177)

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.

Re:For a First Step (2)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 4 months ago | (#47293163)

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

The worst offenders are the neonicotinoid pesticides [wikipedia.org] . 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.

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294121)

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.

Re:For a First Step (2)

Illserve (56215) | about 4 months ago | (#47294375)

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... [entomologytoday.org]

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

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

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

Re:For a First Step (1)

the real darkskye (723822) | about 4 months ago | (#47294491)

Fact check your facts. Your second link's researcher was funded by Bayer [globalnews.ca]

Re:For a First Step (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294713)

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

Re:For a First Step (1)

Illserve (56215) | about 4 months ago | (#47294839)

Fact check your facts. Your second link's researcher was funded by Bayer [globalnews.ca]

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?

 

Poor Bees (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293033)

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".

Re:Poor Bees (0)

dhj (110274) | about 4 months ago | (#47293045)

[citation needed]

Well, there's me. (1, Flamebait)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47293095)

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.

Re:Well, there's me. (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#47293241)

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.

Re:Well, there's me. (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47293315)

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

Re:Well, there's me. (0)

stoploss (2842505) | about 4 months ago | (#47293555)

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.

Re:Well, there's me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293779)

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.

Score:1, Flamebait (1)

mmell (832646) | about 4 months ago | (#47294005)

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?

Re: Score:1, Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294555)

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.

Re:Score:1, Flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294673)

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.

Re:Poor Bees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293113)

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

Re:Poor Bees (1)

dhj (110274) | about 4 months ago | (#47293227)

Good point.

Habitat? Really? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#47293065)

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

Re:Habitat? Really? (1)

PPH (736903) | about 4 months ago | (#47293379)

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.

Re:Habitat? Really? (1)

Virtucon (127420) | about 4 months ago | (#47294719)

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

Re:Habitat? Really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293667)

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.

Obeema the beekiller (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293077)

The policies enacted by the African Bee Government, and the African BEE-EPA in particular, have directly resulted in the death of billions of honeybees and other pollinators.

The illegal immigrant African Queen Bee in Chief and his cabinet and cadre of Africans serve only to antagonize the environment of everyone else.

Impeach the African Queen Bee now, and remove it and the cadre of evil African Bees, before it's too late.

Out of Africa? No sir, back to Africa for you and your lot.

Re:Obeema the beekiller (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293805)

European honey bee [wikipedia.org]

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293177)

It's under 9,000,000!

Free market solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293187)

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.

Re:Free market solution (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 4 months ago | (#47293611)

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

Re:Free market solution (1)

rochrist (844809) | about 4 months ago | (#47293959)

Pretty sure it was excellent sarcasm.

Re:Free market solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294249)

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

Re:Free market solution (1)

sir-gold (949031) | about 4 months ago | (#47294619)

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)

Re:Free market solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294699)

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.

Re:Free market solution (1)

Guy Harris (3803) | about 4 months ago | (#47294955)

Beware Poe's law [wikipedia.org] .

In totalitarian USA... (1)

Jorge666 (3709467) | about 4 months ago | (#47293303)

Even bees carry NSA backdoors.

Ban the bee killing pesticides!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293395)

Ban the bee killing pesticides!!

obeemacare. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293461)

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

Save the Honey Bees (1, Interesting)

hackus (159037) | about 4 months ago | (#47293491)

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.

Re:Save the Honey Bees (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293727)

GMO's have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Farm Subsidies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293493)

Gives whole new meaning for welfare...

nicotine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293673)

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!

Cap and trade (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47293677)

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.

America should do nothing for now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294425)

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."

"Land Management" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47294649)

That's french for "land grabs."

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?