neonics - science collapse disorder

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JBen

Difference between hating a govt and knowing they are
A) Inept....By all means M, name me one inititive you feel they have implemented correctly.
B) Concerned only with popular votes
C) Corrupt

I guess you being a bee keeper has absolutely jack squat to do with it.
Me, I'm impartial, unbiased
You. Biased, with self interest.

And no splitting hairs over whether regulations reduce it by 80% or 100% is not "accuracy", it's semantics.

Just facts accuracy on all the above.

---

lol you're impossible to talk with JBen, you can't even accept something as simple as a word's definition. A ban is a ban is a ban and it means ONE HUNDRED PERCENT prohibition of use. 80% reduction through regulation is NOT A BAN. Deal with it... or not.

As for the rest... i don't care how inept the Liberals are. They're the party in power, an issue has been brought to them and they have begun to act upon it. Nothing is set in stone yet so it's impossible to know if it'll be a massive clusermuck or a miracle of legislation or somewhere in between.

My stance on neonics is the same today (4 months after becoming active in beekeeping) that it was 3 years ago - the testing performed on neonics prior to launch in the industry was subpar, careless and potentially criminally lackluster.

I'm not a beekeeper that relies on commercial crops. Today, and for the foreseeable future, my colonies will be wildflower feeders. Down the road? Who knows.

My concern goes beyond the bees to include all pollinators. We're only talking about bees because they make some Canadians money... but we have no idea how the neonics are affecting other pollinating insects and animal species. This is research that needs to be done - it's inexcusable that it wasn't done before, and it's inexcusable for anyone to argue that commercial growers should be allowed to use the crap willy nilly, when they have no idea what it's capable of.

Well seeing as how your hung up on definitions today. Heres one for you I suggest you read it and comprehend it's meanings before A) accusing someone of....and B)......

Semantics

Quote:

---

the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.

---

If the shoe fits....

And as you always do, when you run out of logic, fact and points.
insults, first that and now....

how predictable.

Question: If the feds are currently studying it and are expected to come out in Oct with their findings and it's expected they will limit it's useage.

What's Ms Wynne's rush.
Care to answer?

There is no rush. The initial Federal report will be out long before any of the Ontario initiatives are engaged and enforced. Well, kind of, I predict the initial testing is going to show that the neonics are far more dangerous, across all spectrums of use, than oversight orgs were first led to believe and studies will be extended before final decisions will be made.

As for your inability to accept what a ban is, look at it this way.

You are currently under a ban - 100% prohibition - to not own any fully automatic firearms.

However, if you liken the ON neonics proposed regulations to gun regulations, if you proved you had suffienct cause to protect yourself forcebly, you would be allowed to comprise a specific portion of your firearm collection with fully automatic firearms.

There is a big difference between not being allowed use of any full autos, and being allowed to use some... Isn't there?

What we do know about neonics is that they are far less toxic to birds and small mammals than the insecticides they replaced - this has been the general trend of the chemical manufacturers and they have come a long way since DDT in the 50's and 60's. And the reasonable course of actions - and I'm sure they are already working on it - is a next generation insecticide which is even less toxic, not an abandonment of the course and revert back to the previous more toxic insecticides.

What the Wynne and OMFRA's plan does not include is what are farmers supposed to be using instead of neonics? No one involved at OMFRA has thought this through.

80% or 100% is splitting hairs M.
Your hung up on the word "Ban" and that is semantics.
/shrug

Quote:

---

What the Wynne and OMFRA's plan does not include is what are farmers supposed to be using instead of neonics? No one involved at OMFRA has thought this through.

---

Are you surprised?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

What the Wynne and OMFRA's plan does not include is what are farmers supposed to be using instead of neonics? No one involved at OMFRA has thought this through.

---

Well, there is no plan yet. Just a couple heading titles really. And understandably that's got growers concerned.

How can they prove they're at risk of threat? Once they do prove there's a risk, will they get authorization to act in time to save crops? Will different regions with different pressures get unique considerations? So on and so forth.

If the growers do revert back to more dangerous products, it'll definitely be interesting to see how the public reacts.

One huge misunderstanding within OMFRA is that they don't seem to realize is that the best way to keep pests at bay is to try to eradicate them...and to do that where crops like corn are planted almost contiguously, everyone uses pesticide and keeps their crops as bug free.

OMFRA wants to not use pesticide until the pests exist at a level above some "threshold" and then allow farmers to try to manage them. That might work in your backyard, but not on hundreds of acres. Once you have reached the measureable threshold, you're stuck with trying to put the genie back in the bottle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

Well, there is no plan yet. Just a couple heading titles really. And understandably that's got growers concerned.

How can they prove they're at risk of threat? Once they do prove there's a risk, will they get authorization to act in time to save crops? Will different regions with different pressures get unique considerations? So on and so forth.

If the growers do revert back to more dangerous products, it'll definitely be interesting to see how the public reacts.

---

The public will likely still be happy that neonics are banned and that we're "saving the bees"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by werner.reiche

The public will likely still be happy that neonics are banned and that we're "saving the bees"...

---

Apparently the public will think what the Sierra Club wants them to think. They are targeting Glyphosphate next. Time for the Feds to step up and get jurisdiction over farming practices. It's too important to leave to the provincial loons the citiots elect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oddmott

Well, there is no plan yet. Just a couple heading titles really. And understandably that's got growers concerned.

How can they prove they're at risk of threat? Once they do prove there's a risk, will they get authorization to act in time to save crops? Will different regions with different pressures get unique considerations? So on and so forth.

If the growers do revert back to more dangerous products, it'll definitely be interesting to see how the public reacts.

---

Well living in one of the largest corn production areas in Ontario and knowing plenty about the agricultural industry , I can say that growers are simply going to look out for their crops if that means having to spray insecticide to save a crop or prevent yield loss it will be done , oddmott you seem to underestimate the complexity of this issue and your claims that farmers "are holding a gun to someone's head " don't have any merit , these producers have simply stated that the Ontario government is forcing them to go back to previous methods of crop protection if they are prohibited from the use of treated seed , I know hundreds of farmers and none of them would tell you they don't care about the bees or the environment . Your claim that they will still be able to use them if they have a problem , well it's too late at that point , the use of neonics is just like an insurance policy and if I was in their shoes and the government told me my policy was now cancelled and provided no alternative I'd be responding in the same manner as the gfo is now to the liberal party.