Jump to content

Frederick

Members
  • Content Count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Seller statistics

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0

Frederick last won the day on February 15

Frederick had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

198 Excellent

About Frederick

  • Rank
    Pupa

Converted

  • Beekeeping Experience
    Commercial Beekeeper

Location

  • Location
    North Island

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Love the sentiment; it would be great to have rational people working with each other and everyone getting a fair shake. However I can’t say I’m taken with the idea off a council or any other arbitrarily driven entity creating a legal mess on this matter in the slightest. I can see the perspective where corporate beekeepers and Landowners relatively new to the industry may well see the idea as a magic elixir with regard to poaching, however family and other beekeeping concerns should be aghast at the possible ramifications, indeed once the Corporate concerns were entrenched the legal and costly compliance involved would ensure everyone including the corporates, councils, beekeepers etc. had wished they’d run a mile from the outset. So an artificial boundary of (let’s say) 1km is drawn around the perimeter of a freehold block. By whom and what happens when the owners of the impinged block decide to plant or let their property regenerate (first in first served)? So landowners and the rightful beekeeper are losing honey to the ‘boundary riding’ rogue beekeepers. Too much perspective in this statement: Which Landowners perspective or Beekeepers Perspective is correct? The one who registers their resource first? Or maybe the one who’s just planted 100ha beside an existing farm/resource which has intermittent Manuka and may only produce a decent quality crop in years when the clover doesn’t flower: Who’s going to pay the legal bill for this one? What takes precedence /dominates? A block of manuka over a block of mixed bush or either of these over paddocks of clover. Room for debate/dispute with massive compliance cost here and the fees for mediation and court costs will be phenomenal Investors who are considering planting manuka forests shouldn’t be dissuaded if they do their homework and plant the appropriate property’s. To involve Councils or MPI and attempt to legislate in this area would turn the industry into a cot-case effectively opening a can of worms for the long term which would have the capacity to cost the industry and investors far more than any rudimentary benefits gained: What a disastrous idea/way to involve the industry in entrenched long term litigation.
  2. Must be Manuka eh! Nah sorry Gino can't rationalise your message!
  3. Fredericks been busy wiping the egg off his face ‘not’! I started this forum because I considered the negative brigade were dominating the debate and delivering an unbalanced picture of both the Levy Vote and APINZ on multiple platforms with a small number of individuals exhibiting deep seated distrust and vitriol towards APINZ I stand by comments I’ve made through this forum, the main message being: APINZ with a new ‘post yes vote’ board structure would’ve delivered the desired commercial representation to effectively send ‘APINZ incl the commercial sector’ along a new path predominately exploring and working for the success of the commercial sector. Effectively I was happy for a commercially dominated APINZ to handle the Levy which in my opinion should be spent 100% on enhancing the commercial viability of the Industry (with paid administration). I note SNI are now actively promoting themselves to take the lead on a levy; the only difference I can see between my message and SNI’s is I considered the end result was definitively ‘there for the taking with a yes vote’ albeit SNI levy structure/details differ ! Consequently they may well promote months of negotiation and angst ahead to possibly get back to where we’ve been: Maybe! In August I canvassed/surveyed a reasonable percentage of the commercial sector consisting of 36 mainly family businesses of 220-9000 hives (74000 Hives in total) and I note: 91% were at that stage against the Levy 42% of whom wouldn’t have a bar of it regardless of how it was presented I quote these figures to show that regardless of which side of the fence you sit on a yes vote for the Levy was virtually unachievable particularly given the history and perception of APINZ. Therefor a 24% ‘Levy’ vote wasn’t that unexpected albeit I do think they have a general support base above this percentage. I back ‘Professional Commercial Industry Representation’ which I still feel we can achieve through APINZ and should they wish to alter their board structure and operations to placate the concerns of the commercial sector and incorporate input from the various commercial entities I feel they have a future leading the Industry and I’ll definitely re-join! I was happy to go out to bat for this Vote and while it equated to the Foxton Old-timers 11 taking on the Auzzi Cricket Team I was happy to take the hits (glad I was wearing a box) and hopefully add a bit to the debate. I closing I’d like to say I hope my initial summary of a NO vote as follows is way off the mark: Vote No and see the industry wallow in a self-perpetuating interest group scrapping mess with no particular direction: Leaving the door open to influences from any entity or group that can gain the ear of MPI and/or the minister. Cheers Keith Rodie
  4. Crikey I'm glad the votes done and wait for the result like everyone: Hopefully its not a 'Heads we lose / Tails we lose' scenario! Thought it pertinent to requote the following paragraghs from my opening post: Forget the Manuka producers should pay more perspective: Just set the levy at a level accommodating to all (I suggest 10c/kg fits the bill) or do we bitch endlessly of the inequities of various industry income streams! Forget the Manuka’s ruining the industry perspective as follows: Manuka’s not responsible for the Honeydew, Bush-blend and Pasture-blend price collapse; it has however been responsible for providing those producers considerable additional income over the last few years. The fact blenders can no longer pay over the odds for these lines doesn’t cancel the previous benefits received.
  5. No worries Grant understand your position and while I stand by my comment I'm not interested in pushing anyone's buttons! I suggest there's been a reasonable sharing of perspectives particularly later in the forum and I repeat: The most negative perspective in this forum has been the incorrect comments made in relation to the APINZ Hobbyist Rep which I note no moderator / administrator picked up on nor commented on (I suggest a personal apology is warranted). Re: 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. I wasn't aware I was repeatedly asked questions I only recall expressing my opinion and answering questions? So be it!
  6. 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!!
  7. 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
  8. 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!
  9. 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!
  10. The spends pretty straight forward: It'll ultimately be set by the Commercial sector (those paying). Payment; can't help you there a fact is a fact; I'll live with it!
  11. We'll have to agree to disagree there Daley. I just don't see the corporates having weight of numbers vote wise and I certainly don't see the corporates all agreeing and block voting either!
  12. I completely agree. Would have also added lack of values and ethics. Over the years I've come across many established beekeepers, a good number of new beekeepers and a few corporate beekeepers. I've seen questionable practices that show a lack of beekeeping and industry nous, knowledge and common sense and those I would consider that lack values and ethics. These issues aren't the sole domain of any one of these groups! By far the greatest majority of people and businesses I have associated / dealt with in beekeeping are decent rational people; a good many colourful characters I'd acknowledge but on the whole so many good people. Corporates are with us one way or the other moving forward and I don't see them dominating beekeeping as as I've elaborated in my original posting in the forum: [...The corporate model just doesn’t work on a beekeeping/hives in the field level and as various corporates work this out and move to alternate share-farming/equity models we will hopefully see a rise in individual Beekeeping Business opportunities for the up and coming in the industry!...] I don't think anyone should allow their distaste of so called 'corporates' to influence their vote in the levy and industry's future!
  13. I'd encourage you to desist from this line of questioning Ted: Its inconsequential in the scheme of things
×
×
  • Create New...