LU Debate 08-09 Halydier, 1 of 4

Bee Negative
T-Bees=Not CAFO’s.......................................................................................................................................................................2
T-Nearly All.....................................................................................................................................................................................3
Bee Operations Inevitable-Almond Industry...................................................................................................................................4

Notes: They don’t have a plan text posted on the wiki, probably out of fear of linking to their managerial arguments, so just roll
with that T if they don’t read a plan.

Make sure to use the bee defense in one of the ethanol negatives, and answers to Heidegger affirmatives in the Wake/App St.
Update.

Even if you don’t read the Nearly All T violation make sure to use the card in that shell that says we don’t actually have any
subsides to beekeepers anymore.
LU Debate 08-09 Halydier, 2 of 4

T-Bees=Not CAFO’s
A. Interp- CAFOs include swines, cattle, chicken, turkeys, aquaculture, horse, buffalo and elk

(“Water Utility Survey”, CAFO Information  Center, EET, May 30, 2006,
http://www.eetinc.com/cafo/watersurvey.html) hgk

The remainder of this discussion focuses on the responses from the 30 utilities with CAFOs in their watershed. Combined they
present a wide range of CAFOs in their watersheds, source water protection measures and goals, treatment responses, and
degrees of communication with CAFOs. The types of CAFOs in those 30 watersheds include swine, beef cattle, dairy
cattle, chickens, turkeys, aquaculture, horse, buffalo, and elk. The primary CAFOs for these watersheds include 10 dairy
cattle, 9 beef cattle, 5 swine, 3 chicken, and a few utilities did not know which were the dominant CAFOs. At least 19 of the 30
utilities have source water protection programs in place.

B. Violation- Bee farms aren’t CAFO’s

C. Standards
1. Limits- Explodes research burden, they can get rid of subsidies to penguin and lizard farms. We
set the best bright line of what is and what isn’t a CAFO.

2. Ground- They don’t give subsides to bees like other CAFO’s. USFG only gives subsidies for
honey. Impossible to get DA links

3. Education- Bee subsidies don’t exist, honey subsidies are not substantial enough to have a good
debate.

D. Voter- fairness and education

LU Debate 08-09 Halydier, 3 of 4

T-Nearly All
A. Interpretation – nearly all means 60%
Foley, 1998 (Jack, staff writer, “Unz: District Violates Law”, San Jose Mercury news, 9/21)
[Ron Unz, B.S. Harvard University, political activist who sponsored numerous propositions in the state of California]

Gilroy schools are violating Proposition 227, said the law's author, which means school board members and the superintendent
could be sued for damages by parents. Trustees voted unanimously in August to teach non-English-speaking students 60
percent in English and 40 percent in Spanish as they phased out bilingual programs to comply with the new law. But
Proposition 227 author Ron Unz said Friday that the law's actual wording stipulates that classroom instruction for non-English-
speaking students -- those enrolled in "sheltered English immersion" programs -- must be conducted "nearly all" in English.
Sixty percent does not come close to complying, Unz said Friday when told of the Gilroy policy. He said his office had
received calls from parents asking about it. "It's completely illegal," Unz said. " 'Nearly all' could mean 98 percent or 99
percent or even 97 percent, but it does not mean 60 percent. The law is very clear and the district seems to be ignoring the law,"
he said. Die-hard supporters of bilingual education have lost most of the legal battles and now are "grasping at straws" to
maintain such programs, he said. May revisit issue At least two Gilroy school board members Friday said they now believe
they may have been misled by staff reports and may ask that the board revisit the issue. The board took its August action
without seeking legal advice, said trustee Patricia Blomquist. "This was by no means an act of defiance," she said. "If we blew
it, we'd better review the issue and pull back."

B. Violation- Federal beekeeper subsidies are not nearly all

1. Almond Industry is the biggest subsidizer of beekeepers
Bee Source 2000 (“PROVIDING SUBSIDIES FOR BEEKEEPERS”, Joe Traynor)
In essence, CA's almond industry is subsidizing the U.S. bee industry to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Any
government subsidy would be dwarfed by the infusion of money that the bee industry has already received and
continues to receive from the almond industry. By creating and maintaining a viable pool of one million bee colonies - a
pool of bees that becomes available to any U.S. ag producer by mid-March - the almond industry is indirectly subsidizing
growers of any other crop that requires bees (apple pollination fees in the western U.S. have dropped significantly due
to this million-colony pool). With current low almond prices, almond growers could make a much better case for
government subsidies than could beekeepers.

2. We’ve already gotten rid of all our subsidies to bee keepers

Bee Biz 98 (European and U.S. Beekeeping Practice: Reflections on an Apicultural Sabbatical in France and Spain, February
1998, http://apis.ifas.ufl.edu/papers/french.htm)

In the United States, there are few, if any direct agricultural subsidies helping the beekeeper. The apicultural industry
has lost many of its programs including pesticide indemnity, governmental honey subsidy and loans in the 1970s and
1980s and they have not been reinstated. Beekeepers must seek loans for honey or equipment on the competitive market
place.

C. Standards
1. Limits- they explode the amount of affs by allowing just small reductions in subsidies and any
permutation of those small reductions.

2. Education – Beekeeper subsides literally don’t exist anymore making the debates pointless

3. Ground- Generic DA links are mitigated because of their small reduction, and there is no bee
subsidy good literature because there are no bee subsidies.

D. Voter- Fairness and education.

LU Debate 08-09 Halydier, 4 of 4

Bee Operations Inevitable-Almond Industry

Almond industry means bees will always have funds to operate
Bee Source 2000 (“PROVIDING SUBSIDIES FOR BEEKEEPERS”, Joe Traynor)
In essence, CA's almond industry is subsidizing the U.S. bee industry to the tune of millions of dollars a year. Any
government subsidy would be dwarfed by the infusion of money that the bee industry has already received and
continues to receive from the almond industry. By creating and maintaining a viable pool of one million bee colonies - a
pool of bees that becomes available to any U.S. ag producer by mid-March - the almond industry is indirectly subsidizing
growers of any other crop that requires bees (apple pollination fees in the western U.S. have dropped significantly due
to this million-colony pool). With current low almond prices, almond growers could make a much better case for
government subsidies than could beekeepers. As long as beekeepers continue to supply CA's almond acreage with bees -
and there is no indication that they won't - then there is no justification for concern about the "billions of dollars"
worth of value that honey bees supply to other U.S. crops. The "billion-dollar benefit" argument is a horse that died several
years ago; beekeepers should dismount before the smell becomes unbearable. Besides paying top dollar for bee rentals, the
almond industry, aware of the importance of a healthy bee industry, has provided nearly a million dollars for bee research over
the years. Beekeepers should consider matching almond industry contributions to bee research, perhaps using funds
obtained from almond pollination fees. As for diminished numbers of feral honey bees (due to Varroa) causing problems
for backyard and small-plot pollination, there are indications that Varroa-resistant feral colonies are making a
comeback. If not, there are alternative methods of pollinating small-acreage crops.