Why did the SBA vote to keep Neonics?

[worm (JTF3)]

At the recent AGM the SBA voted,by 34 to 31, not to support a ban on neonics.(conditions apply)

Given the mounting evidence of harm and the known neurological effects of this highly lucrative product on insect life worldwide, and the reprecussions up to birds and down to worms, how on earth can you support them?

Try and defend yourselves here.

[gavin]

Because the people in the room were unconvinced by the arguments put forward for the motion?

[EmsE]

.... Try and defend yourselves here.

No one needs to defend themselves here. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts and opinions whether you agree with them or not. I guess it's along the lines of entitlement of free speech and probably covered by the human rights act somewhere or other.

Some forum members may completely agree with you, others may disagree with you and some are still undecided, and that's absolutely fine so long as your able to engage in a respectful discussion.

[drumgerry]

I see the terms "respectful" and "discussion" running for the hills as we speak. I wasn't at the meeting but would have voted against the motion if I had been - without feeling any need to justify myself to anyone. The anti-Neonic Taliban seem not to understand that people have a right to disagree with them.

[The Drone Ranger]

I don't think that's what they did, they didn't vote for a ban
In fairness the SBA is about bees not an environmental pressure group
So people would be deciding based on whether they felt their bees were being harmed
I doubt anyone was saying they like pesticides being used

I'm a floating voter if you like and unlikely to be won over by either side whacking me over the head with their wads of evidence

[Trog]

To put it another way, only 31 out of the entire SBA membership, all of whom were aware of the motion, felt that the SBA should lobby for a ban on neonics.

It could be said that the proposer was able to convince only 31 beekeepers in Scotland of the rightness of his cause?

[The Drone Ranger]

To put it another way, only 31 out of the entire SBA membership, all of whom were aware of the motion, felt that the SBA should lobby for a ban on neonics.

It could be said that the proposer was able to convince only 31 beekeepers in Scotland of the rightness of his cause?

Hi Trog
In fairness though only 34 voted against so either a lot of people didn't know enough to decide or they think its a non issue.
It is possible that the majority of members are unwilling to be drawn into an acrimonious argument.?
I like a bit of an argue and sometimes am bit of agent-provocateur but I was surprised by this thread
There is real hostility here and another similar thread not very nice for visitors reading it

[gavin]

Correct. The first post in the thread issued the challenge: 'Try and defend yourselves here', and people are reacting with a 'Not again!' thought brewing in their minds.

There was a campaign to push a particular motion, and new people at the AGM who voted with the proposer. I know personally several people who went to the AGM for other reasons, who were undecided on how to vote or what was right, and after witnessing the debate and assessing the worth of the arguments presented decided to vote against the motion.

It is fair enough for Trog to point out that the proposers could only raise 31 people to vote. It is a large organisation and the motion was published in the magazine that everyone receives. Given the publicity in the media you would have expected beekeepers to be up in arms on this issue and they are not. Especially those with their own experience of bees on the crop.

[The Drone Ranger]

I thought it was fair enough to mention the low turnout for the vote as well
Some subjects seem to be surrounded by fierce argument
And yet the majority of people have no strong opinions
When it was GM crops there was a predicted bee Armageddon and the SBA magazine got thrown to the floor and stamped on a few times
Yet here we all are, and that's the trouble with crying wolf--- one day the wolf will come

[madasafish]

Yet another poster who posts on only one subject.

I think neonics should be banned due to the clear impact it has on some human brains.. :-)

[Trog]

i think neonics should be banned due to the clear impact it has on some human brains.. :-)

:D :rolleyes:

[Dark Bee]

I think neonics should be banned due to the clear impact it has on some human brains.. :-)[/QUOTE]

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..........................

Shall we, erm, vote on the question?:rolleyes:

[chris]

Given the mounting evidence of harm and the known neurological effects of this highly lucrative product on insect life worldwide, and the reprecussions up to birds and down to worms, ............... .

Just to show that the issue is not as black or white you apparently want us to think, a recent 12 year study by the Comité interprofessionnel des vins de Champagne has found an interesting result, and decided that it was not the moment for any communication on the subject.The study compared vines cultivated traditionally with those cultivated organically.Two key factors were retained: the microbian biomass (is that English?) and the earthworm population in the soil.Result? More earthworms present in the traditionally cultivated soils than in the organic ones. The reason given was the extra use of copper in organic grape growing.
Another study carried out in Languedoc-Roussillon reveals that the earthworm population in organically cultivatrd soil compared with traditionally cultivated vines has diminished by 65% over the last 17 years.



I doubt anyone was saying they like pesticides being used


Precisely. And decision makers need to be informed of the many consequences of their decisions to be able to weigh the pros and cons.

[Jon]

I use bordeaux mix which contains copper sulphate to spray my spuds and one of the other guys on the allotments who uses dithane argues with me that bordeaux mix is maybe worse for the soil due to the copper in it even though it is considered a 'soft' treatment and was allowed in organic production until recently. It maybe still is allowed although I know it was under review.

[The Drone Ranger]

Hi Jon

Lots of big potato growers in this area so blight is a problem
I wasn't sure about resistant types but grew Sarpo Mira and they didn't need any treatment at all
You can make decent chips or harvest them early like new potatoes and they are pretty good flavour wise I think
They store well and although they are red they are not to dark to see in fresh dug soil
Last year was a useless wash out though so nothings infallible
I'm giving Orla a try as well this year as its a first early (if I ever get them in the ground)
Gavin is half potato (I hear)and should be able to reel the most resistant ones off without thinking

[Trog]

Orla's good. Think that may be the mysterious potato that grew for years in the compost heap during several blight years, yielded masses of big spuds, and grew very well when planted properly. Growing it again this year from own seed. Got some Charlotte in yesterday; just going out to put some of the mystery spud in ... unless we decide to check the bees instead ...

[The Drone Ranger]

Orla's good. Think that may be the mysterious potato that grew for years in the compost heap during several blight years, yielded masses of big spuds, and grew very well when planted properly. Growing it again this year from own seed. Got some Charlotte in yesterday; just going out to put some of the mystery spud in ... unless we decide to check the bees instead ...
I really wanted some Charlottes this year but there is still snow on the veg patch so by the time they got planted and grew they would be struck down like Obi Wan in Star Wars

I've gone off topic there so I'll ask -- Do you think that the use of Neonic pesticides is hindering the development of disease and pest resistant plants ??

[gavin]

I use bordeaux mix which contains copper sulphate to spray my spuds ....

Chemical Jonni!

[madasafish]

I really wanted some Charlottes this year but there is still snow on the veg patch so by the time they got planted and grew they would be struck down like Obi Wan in Star Wars

I've gone off topic there so I'll ask -- Do you think that the use of Neonic pesticides is hindering the development of disease and pest resistant plants ??

You mean undo in 20 years the selective process that has taken millenia ?

[The Drone Ranger]

You mean undo in 20 years the selective process that has taken millenia ?

Well you might have a point there but I actually meant where two line bred plants are combined giving both hybrid vigour and greater disease and pest resistance
If a plant showed these qualities and could breed true from open pollination companies wouldn't sell it they would cross it and re-brand it :)
There always has to be a barrel which someone can hold you over if you are to hand over all your cash :)

[Neils]

At the recent AGM the SBA voted,by 34 to 31, not to support a ban on neonics.(conditions apply)

Given the mounting evidence of harm and the known neurological effects of this highly lucrative product on insect life worldwide, and the reprecussions up to birds and down to worms, how on earth can you support them?

Try and defend yourselves here.
Given the mounting evidence, how did Eric manage to present such a badly worded case that less than 50% of the barely 10% of the present membership agreed that the SBA should throw its whole weight behind a motion to ban neonicotinoids?

Is the case that weak? Do most Beekeepers believe there are more pressing issues? Are Beekeepers not experiencing the media narrative of bee Armageddon? Is there a wider belief that hanging undoubted problems facing pollinating insects, generally, solely on neonicotinoids, might mask wider issues and that having the associations "crying wolf", just backs us into a corner? Is there some other reasonable reason rather than we all work for Bayer?

Given the scientific credentials of those, in a position where that matters, within the national beekeeping associations who see no reason, currently, to lobby for a ban; might that not give pause for thought to those who would pin everything on these pesticides as to whether they're the root cause of problems that they like to make out?

Evidently you're disappointed that Eric's motion didn't carry, but as a supporter of it might you not be better served trying to put forward the argument(s) as to why it should rather than go on to attack those who thought it shouldn't?

[madasafish]

Given the scientific credentials of those, in a position where that matters, within the national beekeeping associations who see no reason, currently, to lobby for a ban; might that not give pause for thought to those who would pin everything on these pesticides as to whether they're the root cause of problems that they like to make out?

Evidently you're disappointed that Eric's motion didn't carry, but as a supporter of it might you not be better served trying to put forward the argument(s) as to why it should rather than go on to attack those who thought it shouldn't?

i'm sorry but you are addressing someone who is clearly a zealot. Logical arguments carry no weight. Evidence that disagrees with their view carries no weight.ANY opposition carries no weight. They have made their minds up period. Convincing others means you need to consider the opinions and views of others and address the issues others may have about your cause.

By definition, zealots can not allow any suggestion of doubt as it undermines their belief system. So zealots prefer to hurl abuse or treat those who disagree as the spawn of the devil.

Much easier , simpler and requires no original thought - which zealots are largely incapable of.

I am NOT saying all those who act on behalf of the anti-neonics campaign are zealots. Most are not and hold their views based on research and factual evidence. But those who only post on one subject are effectively single issue people and by my definition zealots.

(and in my view do their cause more harm than good : see the number banned or turfed out of forums due to their inability to abide by simple rules that 99% of other posters subscribe to. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable to most normal people)

[worm (JTF3)]

i'm sorry but you are addressing someone who is clearly a zealot. Logical arguments carry no weight. Evidence that disagrees with their view carries no weight.ANY opposition carries no weight. They have made their minds up period. Convincing others means you need to consider the opinions and views of others and address the issues others may have about your cause.

By definition, zealots can not allow any suggestion of doubt as it undermines their belief system. So zealots prefer to hurl abuse or treat those who disagree as the spawn of the devil.

Much easier , simpler and requires no original thought - which zealots are largely incapable of.

I am NOT saying all those who act on behalf of the anti-neonics campaign are zealots. Most are not and hold their views based on research and factual evidence. But those who only post on one subject are effectively single issue people and by my definition zealots.

(and in my view do their cause more harm than good : see the number banned or turfed out of forums due to their inability to abide by simple rules that 99% of other posters subscribe to. That kind of behaviour is unacceptable to most normal people)

That is me you're talking about.
The reason I come across as 'single issue' on this site is that I'm not just interested in bees, but in the healthy life of the planet,in the whole.
If we allow free reign to global companies to maximise their profits regardless of the longer term consequenses,it will be a right mess.Something like the banks.
You're right,I'm not very interested in vicarage garden party discussions on the best type of hive etc. but I do care for our balance of natural systems and how we could improve things.
If this is not a suitable place to air such views I'm sorry,very sorry.

[Trog]

Discussions on the best type of hive do have a direct relevance to the wellbeing of our managed bees. Likewise discussions re feeding, varroa control, acarine. Discussions about winter losses provide solace for those of us who admit to having lost the odd colony, knowing we are not alone in being less-than-perfect beekeepers or alternatively that it's just been one of those years. Sorry you feel they're 'vicarage garden party', whatever that means. There are umpteen and one organisations which exist solely to campaign for and against this, that or the other environmental issue. Why do you want to turn the SBA into just another? It is so, so much more than that.

[pedantic note: it's free rein, not reign]

[Neils]

That is me you're talking about.
The reason I come across as 'single issue' on this site is that I'm not just interested in bees, but in the healthy life of the planet,in the whole.
If we allow free reign to global companies to maximise their profits regardless of the longer term consequenses,it will be a right mess.Something like the banks.
You're right,I'm not very interested in vicarage garden party discussions on the best type of hive etc. but I do care for our balance of natural systems and how we could improve things.
If this is not a suitable place to air such views I'm sorry,very sorry.
Why try and turn a beekeeping organisation into an anti capitalist/big business one? There are plenty of those already, just put your weight into their campaign.

Trying to pin all the ills of today's business world on bees and/or beekeeping just takes focus away from the real problems faced by bees and pollinating insects generally.

If we ignore the anti business element, what do you suppose will replace neonics and why are they a better alternative? Path of least resistance, in lieu of a properly defined path as to what happens next, the assumption has to e that we see the wide scale reintroduction of the pesticides that neonics largely replaced. We know they're excellent at killing bees, and much else besides. So why are they a better alternative?

[The Drone Ranger]

Hi Worm

I understand your concern for the environment and I bet most people on the forum would agree that the less pesticides used the better
For beekeepers and the SBA to call for a ban on Neonic pesticides they would have to be convinced that this particular group of compounds are killing or harming their bees
There has been other candidates in the frame in the past -- remember the anti GM crops campaign in the SBA Magazine
I can see in Beecraft and other publications the slow movement toward the precautionary ban principle
There is work going on as you have pointed out which will make the case or not for bans
There has been a sort of scatter gun approach which blames everything under the sun for colony collapse disorder, which I think you would agree is not a factor in UK beekeeping
A few years ago we were being led to believe CCD was inevitable and a collapse in UK beekeeping would follow
That's why I and others I'm sure have their own precautionary principle which is wait and see what research shows.
Perhaps the SBA should be campaigning on general ecology and farming methods but that's not it's primary function.
If we continually predict the demise of all beekeeping in the UK and are proven wrong time and again who will be listening when the real big bad wolf comes calling
I think we are all on the same side really and so far only about 60 SBA members have even taken a position on the neonics subject

[worm (JTF3)]

Discussions on the best type of hive do have a direct relevance to the wellbeing of our managed bees. Likewise discussions re feeding, varroa control, acarine. Discussions about winter losses provide solace for those of us who admit to having lost the odd colony, knowing we are not alone in being less-than-perfect beekeepers or alternatively that it's just been one of those years. Sorry you feel they're 'vicarage garden party', whatever that means. There are umpteen and one organisations which exist solely to campaign for and against this, that or the other environmental issue. Why do you want to turn the SBA into just another? It is so, so much more than that.

[pedantic note: it's free rein, not reign]

Thankyou for the grammar instruction.
And I accept that the minutiae of your craft is/are important stuff. Nevertheless, I would say that the topics I choose to raise on this forum are probabably of greater importance.
When it comes to international debates about whether or not the predominant pesticide on the planet should continue to be used ad libitum, it is serious stuff. The SBA voting against a moratorium is not insignificant.

PS. I do try to look after all my bees

[worm (JTF3)]

Why try and turn a beekeeping organisation into an anti capitalist/big business one? There are plenty of those already, just put your weight into their campaign.

Trying to pin all the ills of today's business world on bees and/or beekeeping just takes focus away from the real problems faced by bees and pollinating insects generally.

If we ignore the anti business element, what do you suppose will replace neonics and why are they a better alternative? Path of least resistance, in lieu of a properly defined path as to what happens next, the assumption has to e that we see the wide scale reintroduction of the pesticides that neonics largely replaced. We know they're excellent at killing bees, and much else besides. So why are they a better alternative?

Nellie, you know full-well that global companies now often have more influence on the world than individual governments. Who is going to influence their actions?

If the charitable organisations most affected by their excesses demure from objecting to their behaviour, who else will?

To say farmers will only do worse stuff after a ban is defeatist and wrong. Any farmer worth his salt knows how to produce a good crop without this imposed blanket treatment.

[drumgerry]

And I accept that the minutiae of your craft is/are important stuff. Nevertheless, I would say that the topics I choose to raise on this forum are probabably of greater importance.

I disagree wholeheartedly. I'd far rather read anything Trog has to say on beekeeping on Mull (or elsewhere) than any of the mostly argumentative guff you are producing in your second, much lamented stint on this forum. Or any of the equally unpleasant stuff you spewed up in your first stint.

[worm (JTF3)]

Nice!
And I thought there was a fresh ethos of going for the ball not the player.....

[The Drone Ranger]

LOL!!

Would the same effect not be possible by campaigning to adjust the rape subsidy so that untreated crops receive a better level of payment that ones treated
That might negate some of the farmers arguments about loss of earnings etc.

[worm (JTF3)]

LOL!!

Would the same effect not be possible by campaigning to adjust the rape subsidy so that untreated crops receive a better level of payment that ones treated
That might negate some of the farmers arguments about loss of earnings etc.

Farmers don't need more red tape to negotiate. They should know that crop rotations,bees to pollinate the crop,and clean soil is their best way forward.

[drumgerry]

Nice!
And I thought there was a fresh ethos of going for the ball not the player.....

So it's fine for you to say that your posts are more important than Trog's? I must say I'll not be long for this forum if you're going to stay around.

[worm (JTF3)]

ok ........

[The Drone Ranger]

Hi worm

Farmers make lots of money from negotiating red tape :)
They do know about crop rotations etc of course but at the end of the day they go where the money is
The chicken factory in Letham makes 10p / chicken it kills
Now I wouldn't kill anything for 10 pence but the Mitchell family who owned the factory have become millionaires from huge sheds of full of birds growing super fast-- then into lorries --off to the factory --hung by feet-- through stun bath ---throat cut-- plucking machine-- hey presto mansion to live in

[Neils]

Nice!
And I thought there was a fresh ethos of going for the ball not the player.....

Lead by example then. You're being treated no worse, if not considerably better, than how you treat others collectively and individually on this forum, so don't try playing the "nasty man is being mean to me." Card.

[madasafish]

That is me you're talking about.
The reason I come across as 'single issue' on this site is that I'm not just interested in bees, but in the healthy life of the planet,in the whole.
If we allow free reign to global companies to maximise their profits regardless of the longer term consequenses,it will be a right mess.Something like the banks.
You're right,I'm not very interested in vicarage garden party discussions on the best type of hive etc. but I do care for our balance of natural systems and how we could improve things.
If this is not a suitable place to air such views I'm sorry,very sorry.

I have heard all this "global companies " stuff many times before.
From people using PCs/Macs developed by global companies, using electricity..produced by global companies and living in houses with wiring systems mined and produced by global companies.

I suggest you take a few years to learn some basic economics. The only people - apart from governments - who have the capital to fund major projects on which your - and my - lifestyle depends - are global companies.

By all means try to reform them but this is not the place.

It IS the place for "vicarage garden party "discussions and your contempt for that shows your contempt for most beekeepers.

And then you try to enlist our support?

And get upset when the replies you get are less than positive?

Time to learn some diplomacy. Edit : and some basic human psychology..

[The Drone Ranger]

Time to learn some diplomacy. Edit : and some basic human psychology..

like the drama triangle
where we have a persecuted, a persecutor, and a rescuer
The rescuer comes in to help and ends up being the persecuted

so if I say "bit harsh" I become the rescuer and.. Oh! no what an I doing?? .... wait! it wasn't me -it was the vicar
(best read in a Frasier Crane voice)

[Trog]

I disagree wholeheartedly. I'd far rather read anything Trog has to say on beekeeping on Mull (or elsewhere) than any of the mostly argumentative guff you are producing in your second, much lamented stint on this forum. Or any of the equally unpleasant stuff you spewed up in your first stint.

That's very kind of you, Drumgerry. I remember the anti-GM rants that used to appear in the magazine. I skimmed them, sighed, then considered whether SBA membership was worth the cost. I wanted to learn how to be a better beekeeper rather than feel the SBA was forcing me to campaign on farming matters. Whatever happened to GM? Is it still the global-control bogeyman? Or has the new bogeyman replaced it entirely as GM was found not to be the precursor of Armageddon?

'The topics I choose to raise on this forum are probably of greater importance' ....... have you any idea how puffed-up you sound, Wormey?

[madasafish]

I make the following comparison of the anti neonics campaigners with beekeepers.

Any semi experienced beekeeper knows :

- Opening a hive daily is likely to result in increased hostility from the bees.
- Opening daily and prodding the bees with a stick is likely to annoy them further
- Having more than one person opening the same hive daily and prodding them with a stick is likely to infuriate them.


So what do the campaigners do?

They post often
They prod the forum inhabitants with aspersions they are not caring for bees' welfare and accuse anyone who disagrees as being "pro" neonics.(or a lot worse)
They often come mob handed and post lots of times a day.

And then they complain that no-one listens to them and they are treated rudely.

If they treated bees like they did humans, they would have no bees.

[The Drone Ranger]

Hi Trog
You know lazy as I am I wrote to the SB mag a few times asking the GM stuff be at least cut down to less that 5 pages
I have been reduced to throwing the thing on the ground and stamping on it Lol!!
Also the letters page was near impossible to have a discussion on any subject
ie
January --you read something on subject "A" that stirs the blood and you fire off a letter to editor
March--- your letter is published on subject "A"
May --- the author of the article replies but mistakenly thinks you are commenting on another of his articles "B"
July--- Your next letter is printed pointing out that in his reply he is taking about "B" and not "A" therefore it doesn't make sense
Sept-- The author makes a further reply this time on "A" but as it's 9 months later nobody has a clue what you or he are talking about

[drumgerry]

Thankfully the magazine has improved and has ceased to be the mouthpiece of a certain anti-GM, anti-Neonic nematode.

[Trog]

Nobody's answered my question. Is GM still a bogeyman or is it OK since even the Co-op now boast that their cheese is made with a GM organism so OK for veggies?

[EmsE]

The impression i have is that those calling for an immediate ban on the use of neonics (instead of a sensible plan to reduce our dependency on chemicals )support the use of GM as they're not voting against it. If they got the ban they are calling for, then GM is almost guaranteed I'd have thought.

[Trog]

Interesting thought, EmsE :)