I was with you for a lot of this post. However, I'm curious how one can say that "Beekeepers as a service" are harmed and not wild bees. How would wild bees be distinct from harm? It's not like a virus that harms humans distinguishes populations. How does this harm one group and not the other?
I think the complaint is that many of the dramatic bee-decline stories are, without mentioning it, just about rent-a-hive services. It seems dishonest to present as evidence of an environmental catastrophe a particular business problem.
However, as you say, there are real concerns about wild insect declines, and the same chemicals surely kill both. These are what should get airtime.
You're not wrong, but 'wild' honey bees in general aren't the ones being exposed to large commercial farms. Sure there is collateral damage, but that's not enough to endanger honey bees as a whole.
It's also important to note that 'wild' honey bees in America are not native. They were brought over by European settlers, and the ones who leave the hive or get left behind have formed the populations we now call 'wild'.
Maybe this article is doesn't apply since it pertains to the UK, and I'm not really familiar with the situation there. But my main point, is in regards to these articles you see all the time, that make it appear as if honey bees are on the verge of extinction.
In regards to the USA, if you write an article about honey been dying, and you purposefully don't mention the history of how they arrived here in the first place, and purposefully don't explain the massive role commercial beekeepers play, it is not very helpful. It is clear they are serving their own agenda.
