And who are the "we" behind the "our"?

If the message is the truthful, important one, viz., that it is both unethical and foolish to treat animals as mere instruments and resources in a shamelessly anthropocentric system, then:

1. it is not clear that that is quite what Hershey's and Haagen Dazs are hearing; and

2. environmentalists are not clearly united and univocal in delivering it.

There are the much smaller "pollen bees" (that live in nature) that do the majority of pollination and there are no problems with those.

http://www.pollinatorparadise.com/Solitary_Bees/Diversfy. ...

Texeme.Construct(function(x)=Participation(x))

The seemed to be immune to the collony collapse disorder but that is just my observation. I noticed the euopean bees reduced number on my clover over the last several years. The wild bees were holding steady at about the same levels.

Unfortunately a coal corporation did a valley fill in the hollow behind me that was the hive area of the wild bees.

It would be good if someone could do a study of the wild bee population and see if they are succumbing to this disorder also.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

That message in this case would be, if you'd read the article linked here, that the wanton use of chemical pesticides is providing a good example of how plants and animals do not live in a food chain but in a food web, and one vanished species can effect the others.  Witness what has happened to other food species when humans stopped cultivating or consuming them:

75% of European food product diversity has been lost since 1900

93% of American food product diversity has been lost in the same time period

33% of livestock varieties have disappeared or are near disappearing

30,000 vegetable varieties have become extinct in the last century, and one more is lost every six hours

As to your question about who "we" are, it seems apparent, Canis, that you and I are not quite of the same viewpoint.  However I believe we can agree that a massive loss of the honeybee population is a detriment to everyone's way of life, yours, mine, and the bees included.

I wonder though if your stand against the consumption and domestication of animal species extends to pets?  To Horseback riding? To work animals?  To seeing-eye dogs? Domestication of bees is not what is killing them - in fact it has greatly advanced there numbers.  Chemical pollution, on the other hand, has caused clear calamities.

Though I am sure I will never convince Canis of this, it is possible to be a compassionate carnivore.  It is also possible for humans and other animals to benefit each other, not just one for the other, but a two way street.

Lastly, to Canis' other two points, that "it is not clear that that is quite what Hershey's and Haagen Dazs are hearing; and environmentalists are not clearly united and univocal in delivering it."  First a point of order, it's Nestle that owns Haagen Dazs, not Hershey.  But more importantly I believe it is a message they are receiving because the only way to get the attention of corporate barons is to hit them in the pocketbook, which a loss of supply would do to them - thus they notice.

And on your second point, clearly we are not univocal about this because there are many people who believe that environmentalism and domestication of animals are not compatible.  I disagree, and contend that feeding the world even an all-organic, all-vegan diet would be impossible without enormous numbers of pollinators, both wild and domestic.

I wonder if I shall ever write a word upon which Canis and I can agree.

Peace, kmf ___________________________________________________________________ A meal is a terrible thing to waste

Organic honeybee-keepers are not reporting CCD.

http://www.celsias.com/2007/05/15/organic-bees-surviving- ...

I was happy to see Costco now offering organic honey in their stores.

Support your local organic honey provider or get organic honey where you can.

Because you write for Gristmill, and I read it regularly, including what you write, I take it for granted that you and I agree on very many important things.

For example, what environmentalist could deny the destructive effect of "wanton use of chemical pesticides"?  What environmentalist could fail to deplore the loss of many varieties of domesticated plants, and of some (by no means all -- it depends) varieties of domesticated animals?

But it was not clear from the original post that that was what you had in mind. Or at least, I was too slow-witted to get it.

As for Colony Collapse Disorder, it is hardly a year and a half since it was first observed and identified as a widespread problem, and the causes of it are still not well understood.  Of course environmentalists are one group among several who have shown great concern about the problem.  But it certainly does not seem to be the case that environmentalists have issued a pronouncement along the lines of: "The problem is plainly X; and we have been telling you all along that if you do not do something about X, there would be trouble."

Sure, chemical pesticides have been recognized as a huge problem since at least the time of Rachel Carson.  And there are other, newer environmental hazards now, e.g. GM monocrops.  And entomologists studying CCD have been examining the effect of various mites who are bee-parasites, including invasives from other continents.  All such subjects are indisputably well-established concerns of environmentalists.

But again, I missed it if that is what you were talking about.

Since CCD has received widespread public attention, one impressive detail that is not overlooked, but which is not easy to evaluate, is the great stress that bees undergo when their colonies are shipped here and there in the course of the professional pollination business.  Whether that stress has anything directly to do with CCD, seems not to have been established.  Nevertheless it is a matter of concern.  And that is what I was alluding to, perhaps too subtly, in my earlier comment.

My "stand" on the consumption or domestication of animals, etc., is not quite as you seem to characterize it.  I am not opposed to either one, given the right circumstances.  I am not opposed to humans' relying on the services of working dogs and horses, given satisfactory treatment of the animals and a decent relationship between them and their human companions.  While most environmentalists might be expected to consider animal welfare an issue of appropriate concern, they cannot all be expected to make it a principal focus of their own interests; and it is certainly too much to ask them, at this stage in our ethical evolution, to uphold an ethics of animal rights.

On the other hand, I am very strongly opposed to anthropocentrism, one principal manifestation of it being the thoughtless sense of entitlement that justifies the exploitation of animals, the neglect of whose interests is held to be a matter of ethical indifference.

I certainly agree with your statement, that "plants and animals do not live in a food chain but in a food web."  In fact, it is possible that I take it more seriously than you do -- but then again, I think there are far more important and valuable relationships within this web than merely eating and being eaten.  

Environmentalists are committed to the well-being of the entire community of living creatures in the world.  That commitment becomes questionable, if we should prefer the good of just one of those creatures over the good of others.

Finally: Sorry for my senior moment, in which I confused Hershey's for Nestle's.  No doubt "chocolate" got stuck in my head through free association, and then the wrong manufacturer's name popped out.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

There are several species of bumble bee, i.e. bees of the genus Bombus, in eastern North America, including Kentucky.  The largest is the American Bumble Bee, B. pennsylvanicus.  But there is a pretty one half the size, the Red-Tailed Bumble Bee, B. ternarius, workers measuring maybe half an inch long, who may be the one you mean.

As for black bees, there are a large number of bees of the genus Osmia who are collectively called Mason Bees, found just about everywhere in North America.  They too are pollinators, and not more than a half inch long.  The ranges of individual species are usually pretty restricted, though, which means a destructive phenomenon such as MTR might be a serious threat to a population or species.

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

The area is just so rich with a diverse litany of plant and animal life, of course insects.

My father tried to teach me the names of all the different trees and herbs. He knew them all, although probably not by the correct biological name.

The black bee's "Osmia" are my favorite. Most folk just know the honey you buy at the super market. You have different types of honey down here depending on what the bees are using. Locust honey from the black bee is the most wonderful stuff, dark and rich, some say strong but I quess its an acquired taste. When they are on poplar the old timers here called it lynn honey. Don't ask me why, it is a light colored honey.

I think most commercial honey is made from clover but I may be wrong.

Different types of honey and different color, depending on what the bees are on at the time.

The black bees on my land come from the hollow behind me that was burried by a MTR I know for sure. My main hollow is a north south hollow and the bees flew in from the east west hollow that runs or did run behind my house. Most wild bee hives I have found have been in east/west hollows which of course is the way the sun tracks across the sky. I do not know if this has anything to do with their taking coordinates or direction headings off he sun or not. Just an observation, so much to learn about them.

Anyway thanks for the info, I will definately do some research in this area.

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.