| From a occasional contributor... (My comments will be in blue italics from here on down) Hi Allen,
Don't worry, I'll be gentle. Now, just bite down on this bullet... This email was attached. I've interspaced my comments (in blue)... ---- Original Message ----- > Allen Dick has made comments on his website honeybeeworld.com, concerning CHC and CAPA. (We) don't want to get into an endless argument with him but (name withheld) has written a very good reply below. Thought you might be interested in seeing his response. Hmmm. Why 'argue'? What ever happened to 'discuss' and 'consider'? > >Subject: RE: Rebuttal?
Hmmm. This is interesting. Apparently there was nothing in the 2,932 words I wrote that was positive, or thought-provoking and the writer has decided to be insulted. Not a very promising start for dialogue. Actually, I though the topic had more to do with equity than insults and economics.
> >The economic wrapping is paper thin. To be a protectionist one must
Okay, I see where we are going. We'll narrowly define 'protectionist', erect a straw man, beat it up, and that should do the trick. We can now forget about any good points raised, and the rights and aspirations of minorities. Diversionary tactics have always worked for the CHC when faced with legitimate dissent in the past, and are being called on to hold the fort a while longer. > >Beekeepers sell primarily honey, beeswax and pollination
What can I say? If you are getting confused and think he is addressing something I said, here is what I actually did say. > >Since Alberta The assumption here is that it is a commodity or commodities that are being protected. There is some of that, alright, but the protectionism here is more insidious; it has more to do with defense against competition, new entries into the business, and more the efficient larger operations that would be possible if an unlimited supply of package bees came onto the market. Although the article fingers protectionism, there is a much more sinister factor at play and that is the simple disregard -- even distain -- by those in positions of power in our industry for the rights, interests, and aspirations of those less powerful. Maybe we should be focusing on that? > >Further, the value of live hives That is a really interesting sentence structure, but, regardless of what he is attempting to say, my experience surrounding this very question that made the penny drop in my mind. As readers will realize, I am in the process of selling our bees and equipment and have my finger on the pulse of the market. We are, today, experiencing the highest market prices for honey in a generation and yet I have 3,000 unsold drawn supers sitting, unsold, and this is the middle of a honey flow. We are experiencing the highest prices ever for honey and equipment sits empty. That says something to me. I remember the 1970s, the last time that honey trebled in price. Package bees were available without any limit at the time, and anything that remotely resembled a beehive sold instantly for amazing prices -- more than new equipment. We're now selling supers below new cost and still there are some left. We sold our bees without difficulty. Interestingly, people would have preferred to buy just bees -- many had empty boxes at home -- but were so desperate they they bought complete hives. That's thanks to the CHC and CAPA, folks. > >Hence I conclude that the word "protectionist" is being used in a
Actually, the word is 'pejorative'.
No matter. That was not the intent, and, who said it was intended in some narrow economic sense, anyhow? Not me. I have a lot of respect for protectionist sentiments. I have a few myself. The question is whether this protectionism is justified, equitable -- and legal. (Readers: If you are getting confused by the straw man argument , here is what I did say). > >There are a number of sub -arguments; I will take each in tern: Yup, I did say that, and I'll concede that this is a slight oversimplification. Obviously, at some point, Other factors -- like lack of drawn comb -- would restrict growth. We're a long way from that point. > >This argument ignores the very economic factors the rest of the
article Okay. I appreciate rhetoric as much as the next guy, but it does not move me at all. Please explain how I ignore the economic factors, and which ones.
> >2. The decline in the number of beekeepers is significant and
reveals Talk about ignoring things; the point was that many, if not essentially all of these other agricultural industries have been able to increase their output and viability significantly. Ours is throttled by lack of reliable and reasonably-priced supply of an essential input. Everything else is in place. I know that; I have been talking to frustrated would-be beekeepers a lot lately. Further, Okay. That's a typical CHC response. It goes something like this. "I'm okay, so, everybody, be like me and you'll be fine". People who make this kind of argument tend to be rather insensitive to the fact that people are very different in their situations, needs, and aspirations. Let's take a good look. Could everyone be just like you? How much new capacity are you adding to our industry? How many new jobs and buildings are you adding to our industry, and how much of the unused pasture I mentioned are you bringing into use? I bet you got a bargain because beekeepers are short of bees and outfits go cheap. I know you think that the price is fair, but wait until you are about to retire and we'll see what you say. > >3. Capa and CHC are 'special interest' groups. What would you call it? What would the man on the street call it? > >then this is simply false. Well, it isn't. They are obviously special interest groups in every sense of the word. Moreover, they sometimes -- like the case in point -- do not even represent all their members, or their entire industry!
> >CHC works on behalf of the entire industry on many fronts QED, but I'm glad we agree on something, and obviously CHC can do some things right. Maybe we can get CHC working for the whole industry on the border issue. > > Similarly, I have found CAPA highly diverse in interests Again, I don't have a clue how that has anything to do with the discussion. I did not ever say CHC or CAPA were incapable of doing anything right. CAPA does lots of good work, and many CAPA and CHC members are my friends. Heck, I'm a CHC member. (Readers: If you are getting confused, here is what I actually did say). All I am saying is that CAPA and CHC's board and staff have a perspective that
> >4. Eastern Beekeepers have 'vested' interests in keeping the border
closed. Let's see what a dictionary says...
Hmmm. I said exactly what I meant. I did not say 'invested. If you are getting confused, here is what I did say. > > We all have 'vested' interests in
beekeeping since we Is it? I don't think so. I suggested that many think they are protecting their territory. I did also say this: "Unfortunately, bee industry organizations in Canada are largely dominated by small operators with a vested interest in preventing expansion of the industry and the competition that might ensue from that expansion, and by salaried civil servants who think in terms of risk, rather than in terms of opportunity". > >The If I had said these things I might, perhaps, be in a 'classical dilemma', (although I though the classical dilemma had more to do with a specific technical theological difficulty than with self-interest). Seeing as I did not say these things -- he said them, then attacked them -- I see no point in supporting them. Here is what I did say. Perhaps I should point many Eastern beekeepers -- and would-be beekeepers everywhere -- would also benefit from a more open border. Let's not lump all Easterners into one lot. I realize that that could be inferred from the title of my piece, but that is not the intent, and is the least generous interpretation. > >In conclusion, I offer the following challenge. I agree that we
should Nobody is throwing mud, and there are no insults intended, although I must confess to having some fun with you, and your overly serious and defensive friends. I cannot be held responsible for insult deliberately taken. Reading insults into a debate is counterproductive, unless the goal is to divert attention from the genuine issues at hand, and, if that is what is happening, it's an old and transparent trick that has lost its efficacy. Accusations are not insults; they are accusations, and CHC stands justly accused of ignoring, and even opposing, the best interests of a large segment of its constituency and possibly the public good, to boot. > >It would be more Interesting. Everyone west of the Saskatchewan border -- and more than a few east of there -- can see how unsupportable the current position is an how oppressive it is to many beekeepers and would-be beekeepers. We are just pointing it out so clearly that nobody can fail to see. As for momentum, the momentum is obviously all with the CHC, but, that momentum can be more accurately described as inertia. It is time to change that. > > I will have no more of that myself. Fine. I don't think you addressed even one of my points anyhow. Is there ANYONE supporting the embargo against US bees who can address the issues, and who will address what I did say, and not some misrepresentation of my article. If so, bring 'em on. We're working the bugs out of this position, but, so far, it looks like a winner! |