Jump to content

Commodity Levy / Fight for the Industrys future?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Philbee said:

Ive asked this question before,
Who are these corporates that we need to avoid?

If they are to be singled out as an entity @Daley shouldn't a definition be included?
 

Why would I want to name names Phil.

We all know who they are, some of us are lucky enough to have had personal experiences with their bad behaviour.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 621
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Right. Page 13. Finally. It is late, but my kid seems to like waking up every hour so it’s not like I’d be sleeping anyway.   This thread was painful to read, I respect Keith a great de

I am veery interested in gender ..... it's important.... particularly when as a single fellah I was riding the rails  on a train in India and being seranaded by a stunningly beautifull lady .....with

True nothing has changed, hmmmmmm, at least the NBA as frazz said was beekeeper driven, and was mostly run on voluntary work. And to be honest we got more out of NBA as beekeepers than I reckon we wil

Posted Images

15 minutes ago, Philbee said:

Ive asked this question before,
Who are these corporates that we need to avoid?

If they are to be singled out as an entity @Daley shouldn't a definition be included?
 

@Daley can’t single anyone out or she would have to send herself a warning from admin.?

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ted said:

@Daley can’t single anyone out or she would have to send herself a warning from admin.?

OK but a definition of the term in this specific context is warranted IMO
Im serious, because there are a lot of Beekeeping entities that fit the accepted definition of the Term Corporate and right now they are being degraded
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Philbee said:

OK but a definition of the term in this specific context is warranted IMO
Im serious, because there are a lot of Beekeeping entities that fit the accepted definition of the Term Corporate and right now they are being degraded
 

?‍♀️

My definition, the corporates I refer to:

They engage in gaining sites with false promises, overcrowding, overstocking, bad hive management, bad hive treatment, anti-social behaviour, migratory beekeeping with no consideration of others already in the area, poor form when moving hives, causing public nuisance, poor and irresponsible hive placement.

 

I could probably go on but you get the idea.

If there are corporates that are not doing that, then that’s great news and they are definitely not included in my idea of a corporate, though they may be by most people’s definition.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Daley said:

They engage in gaining sites with false promises, overcrowding, overstocking, bad hive management, bad hive treatment, anti-social behaviour, migratory beekeeping with no consideration of others already in the area, poor form when moving hives, causing public nuisance, poor and irresponsible hive placement.

That's all PPBK that anyone could do, even me. It doesn't define the entity doing it. Being a public company would have to be one defining characteristic wouldn't it ? 

Edited by yesbut
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, yesbut said:

That's all PPBK that anyone could do, even me. It doesn't define the entity doing it. Being a public company would have to be one defining characteristic wouldn't it ? 

Sure, but in a levy situation those people would have much the same say as I would so they don’t bring the same level of concern.

 

I suppose it would yes, as they are large hive holders answerable to shareholders, and tend to be the most cutthroat and self interested.

They are operating within the law so there tends to be very little protection from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Daley said:

?‍♀️

My definition, the corporates I refer to:

They engage in gaining sites with false promises, overcrowding, overstocking, bad hive management, bad hive treatment, anti-social behaviour, migratory beekeeping with no consideration of others already in the area, poor form when moving hives, causing public nuisance, poor and irresponsible hive placement.

 

I could probably go on but you get the idea.

If there are corporates that are not doing that, then that’s great news and they are definitely not included in my idea of a corporate, though they may be by most people’s definition.

Great description Daley
Now, in all the world who is going to confront this type of Entity for you, us, the industry?
Who if anyone, is close enough to the Halls of power to address these issues?

Can a "no" vote address these issues?

Will these issues you have described magically disappear with a "no" vote?
Do you or anyone you know have a plan because its an accepted fact that nothing constructive happens without a Plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Philbee said:

Great description Daley
Now, in all the world who is going to confront this type of Entity for you, us, the industry?
Who if anyone, is close enough to the Halls of power to address these issues?

Can a "no" vote address these issues?

Will these issues you have described magically disappear with a "no" vote?
Do you or anyone you know have a plan because its an accepted fact that nothing constructive happens without a Plan.

You can’t confront them, it’s pointless.

You just have to outlast them.

Which I think will be far more likely with a no vote.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Daley said:

?‍♀️

My definition, the corporates I refer to:

They engage in gaining sites with false promises, overcrowding, overstocking, bad hive management, bad hive treatment, anti-social behaviour, migratory beekeeping with no consideration of others already in the area, poor form when moving hives, causing public nuisance, poor and irresponsible hive placement.

 

I could probably go on but you get the idea.

If there are corporates that are not doing that, then that’s great news and they are definitely not included in my idea of a corporate, though they may be by most people’s definition.

Crikey Daley your definition of corporate is obviously pretty wide reaching; from my experience while not particularly wide spread the practices you describe above are evident in most if not all beekeeping groups from family, new, company and corporate.

  • These issues aren't the sole domain of any one of these groups!

And while we might like to think we can influence the business practices of the industry you'll find it hard to regulate most of the above.

A strong organisation making representations of your behalf might be the best starting point!

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Something else to consider . . . who is typically buying the honey from smaller operations? Plenty of people talk of selling their honey to Arataki or Comvita or other corporate companies. So should it be divided into corporate beekeeping and corporate packing ? I guess along the lines of what Comvita have done recently.

Of course if you're a smaller operation packing and selling all your own honey and have no business partnership with larger companies - great.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JohnF said:

Something else to consider . . . who is typically buying the honey from smaller operations? Plenty of people talk of selling their honey to Arataki or Comvita or other corporate companies. So should it be divided into corporate beekeeping and corporate packing ? I guess along the lines of what Comvita have done recently.

Of course if you're a smaller operation packing and selling all your own honey and have no business partnership with larger companies - great.

I don’t consider Arataki to be corporate.

Corporate packing is not causing a problem, but the beekeeping tends to.

 

4 hours ago, Frederick said:

Crikey Daley your definition of corporate is obviously pretty wide reaching; from my experience while not particularly wide spread the practices you describe above are evident in most if not all beekeeping groups from family, new, company and corporate.

  • These issues aren't the sole domain of any one of these groups!

And while we might like to think we can influence the business practices of the industry you'll find it hard to regulate most of the above.

A strong organisation making representations of your behalf might be the best starting point!

I think a strong organisation has the potential to do good, but it depends who is getting the most say, and we know that the bigger players will be getting more say.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Daley said:

I don’t consider Arataki to be corporate.

Corporate packing is not causing a problem, but the beekeeping tends to.

 

I think a strong organisation has the potential to do good, but it depends who is getting the most say, and we know that the bigger players will be getting more say.

A voting block from the likes of NZ Beekeeping could be the biggest player on the block?

But really I can't say any more than I have apart from, I'm willing to go down this path!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/02/2019 at 10:13 PM, Frederick said:

Another wonderful insight Frazz you obviously have no rational opinion to add!

Again I'm not interested in childish byplay?

 

Your point being?

 

I'm only at page 5 of this discussion and catching up due to the moderation note, but all I can see from you Mr F is repetative trolling of people who dont agree with you. Let's hope I dont find much more on the next 10 pages because I'm beginning to get bored.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Grant said:

 

I'm only at page 5 of this discussion and catching up due to the moderation note, but all I can see from you Mr F is repetative trolling of people who dont agree with you. Let's hope I dont find much more on the next 10 pages because I'm beginning to get bored.

Grant I pushed the parcel with this Forum in an attempt to stimulate discussion on aspects of the Levy vote I considered were being overlooked. Primarily the aspect of the commercial sector attaining what the professed to want with what was sitting on the table with this levy vote.

 

If you read all my main posts and then want to have a crack at me all very good but I stand by the comments I made to Frazz and others earlier in the piece!

 

The most negative perspective in this forum has been the incorrect comments made in relation to the APINZ Hobbyist Rep which I note no administrators picked up on nor commented on.

 

Odd you'd enter with such a negative jibe so late in the piece: Maybe you might have something constructive to say in due course

 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 17/02/2019 at 7:01 AM, Trevor Gillbanks said:

I have never said the NZ Beekeepers or SNI should take over ApiNZ

 

I've seen this pop up a few times in this topic. NZ Bees and NZ Beekeepers imples this site. Please when refering to other organisations be careful to use the correct name

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Daleys description of a corporate is perfect. I personally have been adversely affected by at least four of these entities and know that Arataki (large but  family-owned) have been affected by many more. You can't compete against someone using someone else's money.

I often wonder whether they deliberately act so badly or whether they really truly are ignorant. Certainly in the one case when I did tell them I had a site right beside theirs (been there for 60 years) they completely ignored me.

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Grant said:

 

I'm only at page 5 of this discussion and catching up due to the moderation note, but all I can see from you Mr F is repetative trolling of people who dont agree with you. Let's hope I dont find much more on the next 10 pages because I'm beginning to get bored.

 

Ooh, you're not going to like it when I start accusing another of trolling then @Grant !

But I will be interested in your views reading the thread. I may or may not agree with them but I will be interested in them

Edited by JohnF
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Grant said:

 

I've seen this pop up a few times in this topic. NZ Bees and NZ Beekeepers imples this site. Please when refering to other organisations be careful to use the correct name

I know exactly who NZ Beekeeping is.  The only thing I perhaps should have put was NZ Beekeeping Society Inc. Under no circumstances did I mean NZ Bees.

 

I do agree that it does get confusing.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, john berry said:

I think Daleys description of a corporate is perfect. I personally have been adversely affected by at least four of these entities and know that Arataki (large but  family-owned) have been affected by many more. You can't compete against someone using someone else's money.

I often wonder whether they deliberately act so badly or whether they really truly are ignorant. Certainly in the one case when I did tell them I had a site right beside theirs (been there for 60 years) they completely ignored me.

John I'll concede to your appraisal to a degree but only with the rider: These issues aren't the sole domain of the corporates!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19/02/2019 at 2:05 PM, JohnF said:

What I do not like is repeated asking of the same questions that have been repeatedly answered. To keep asking the same questions is to try and tie up peoples' time to keep answering the same questions. This (to me) is trolling.

And here you have succinctly defined most of the early posts by Keith, yet you found those acceptable?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, john berry said:

I think Daleys description of a corporate is perfect. I personally have been adversely affected by at least four of these entities and know that Arataki (large but  family-owned) have been affected by many more. You can't compete against someone using someone else's money.

I often wonder whether they deliberately act so badly or whether they really truly are ignorant. Certainly in the one case when I did tell them I had a site right beside theirs (been there for 60 years) they completely ignored me.

 

 . . but then they came back to you to see if all your hives had gone queenless too John ? :1_grinning:

 

Not really something to joke about I guess - but I think a definition of a corporate would have to be more objective.

More than 5,000 hives  and Managing director did not found the business or not a descendant of founder and less than 50 years old and 3 instances where shown not to be following ApiNZ code of conduct, is it called?

. . .for example

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Grant said:

And here you have succinctly defined most of the early posts by Keith, yet you found those acceptable?

 

Yes.

Keith's posts were answering or expressing a viewpoint to questions . .. not asking the same already-answered questions and yet not providing own examples or viewpoints.

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, frazzledfozzle said:

@JohnF I only brought it up again because of the hounding of @Ali about his/her status.

 

I agree, I'm raising these points with the team as I go through the topic. Although I'm more concered about the reponses to the gender enquiry, something which is completely irrelevant. 

What surprises me a little is the lack of member reports on these posts. We get alerted when an opposing view is made, but not alerted when someone is being picked on - what's that all about you lot?

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Frederick said:

Odd you'd enter with such a negative jibe so late in the piece: Maybe you might have something constructive to say in due course

I made it very clear why I came into the discussion. Don't push my buttons Keith, because my button has slightly more kick to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...