Beemaster's International Beekeeping Forum

BEEKEEPING LEARNING CENTER => REPRINT ARTICLE ARCHIVES => Topic started by: the kid on May 26, 2008, 03:23:36 pm

Title: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: the kid on May 26, 2008, 03:23:36 pm
I thought some one would bee intrested in reading this .. its about how money takes the british bees ,, and endorsements ,, but not in a good way
I do not know were this should go so fell free to move it
http://www.britishbee.org.uk/news/statements/bbka-endorsements.shtml
the kid
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: JP on May 26, 2008, 05:36:31 pm
There is no conclusive evidence that indicates any chemical is responsible for CCD, if it were so, it would be showing up in the bodies that are being sampled.

It is sounding more and more that it is some kind of virus or disease.

This article on the BBK does smell, actually wreak of a Pay Off though.


...JP
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: Daddys Girl on May 26, 2008, 06:20:17 pm
There is no conclusive evidence that indicates any chemical is responsible for CCD, if it were so, it would be showing up in the bodies that are being sampled.

Anyone who draws a causal link between CCD and the Bayer pesticides issue in Europe is simply not reading.  Germany banned Bayer chemicals very recently because they found the chemicals in the dead honeybees, not because of CCD.

Quote
This article on the BBK does smell, actually wreak of a Pay Off though.

A 20K pounds a year payoff to the organization, to be precise.
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: JP on May 26, 2008, 06:49:05 pm
There is no conclusive evidence that indicates any chemical is responsible for CCD, if it were so, it would be showing up in the bodies that are being sampled.

Anyone who draws a causal link between CCD and the Bayer pesticides issue in Europe is simply not reading.  Germany banned Bayer chemicals very recently because they found the chemicals in the dead honeybees, not because of CCD.

Quote
This article on the BBK does smell, actually wreak of a Pay Off though.

A 20K pounds a year payoff to the organization, to be precise.

I'm not drawing any casual links, it is common knowledge that test for chemicals in bees with CCD issues has been NON-CONCLUSIVE.

Have you been doing your homewwork???


...JP
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: the kid on May 26, 2008, 07:54:24 pm
sorry ,,,I was more on the pay  part then the CCD,,  I dont like when the main money comes from one company,,,  and to say in there ads that there promoted by beekeepers....        the CCD thing is not my way of thiking ....
the kid
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: JP on May 26, 2008, 07:59:32 pm
sorry ,,,I was more on the pay  part then the CCD,,  I dont like when the main money comes from one company,,,  and to say in there ads that there promoted by beekeepers....        the CCD thing is not my way of thiking ....
the kid

Yeah, well my head must have been on the CCD issue and Daddy's girl tried to bite it off!

The article does wreak pay off though.


...JP
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: Daddys Girl on May 26, 2008, 09:18:54 pm
I'm not drawing any casual links, it is common knowledge that test for chemicals in bees with CCD issues has been NON-CONCLUSIVE.

Excuse me, but did I say that you did?  No.  Thanks for playing.  Reinforces my point that people need to do their reading before connecting the situation with Bayer and BBKA with CCD.

Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: JP on May 26, 2008, 11:59:07 pm
I'm not drawing any casual links, it is common knowledge that test for chemicals in bees with CCD issues has been NON-CONCLUSIVE.

Excuse me, but did I say that you did?  No.  Thanks for playing.  Reinforces my point that people need to do their reading before connecting the situation with Bayer and BBKA with CCD.



Well Daddy's girl your ill mannered remark was made right after you quoted me. You can look at how it unfolded above.


...JP
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: Daddys Girl on May 27, 2008, 01:31:44 am
Well Daddy's girl your ill mannered remark was made right after you quoted me. You can look at how it unfolded above.

Yes, you jumped to a conclusion without reading what I wrote, and perhaps even what you wrote.  And when you wrote:

"Have you been doing your homewwork???"

I naturally assumed that you had done yours.  My mistake.  Might be a new beek, but I've been reading for decades.

BTW, thank you, the kid, for posting the original post.  It's an issue that I think American beekeepers need to watch, because I am certain that the agri-chem companies are at least as willing to corrupt over here--and they generally have defacto government support in their activities.
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: JP on May 27, 2008, 09:42:14 am
Well Daddy's girl your ill mannered remark was made right after you quoted me. You can look at how it unfolded above.

Yes, you jumped to a conclusion without reading what I wrote, and perhaps even what you wrote.  And when you wrote:

"Have you been doing your homewwork???"

I naturally assumed that you had done yours.  My mistake.  Might be a new beek, but I've been reading for decades.

BTW, thank you, the kid, for posting the original post.  It's an issue that I think American beekeepers need to watch, because I am certain that the agri-chem companies are at least as willing to corrupt over here--and they generally have defacto government support in their activities.


I see this is just going in the wrong direction, so to keep peace, I will digress from further tit for tats.

And I will agree that this discussion was not aimed at the CCD issue soley, it was my diversion.


...JP
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: Keith13 on May 27, 2008, 03:14:37 pm
Wow talk about opening a hot hive
Jees
Title: Re: endorsments that hurt beekeepers
Post by: Jerrymac on May 29, 2008, 11:07:30 am
(http://www.longdog.karoo.net/smilies/wussyfight.gif)