We Didn’t Save the Wrong Bees — We Just Forgot the Ecosystem
A harder conversation about pollinators, honey bees, and what actually helps
A recent article by the Washington Post points out that we may have “saved the wrong bees.” It’s a provocative headline — and like most provocative headlines, it’s only partly true.
Because here’s the reality:
We didn’t save the wrong bees; we just asked the wrong question.
For years, the environmental message was simple: Save the bees. And people listened. Backyard apiaries exploded. Rooftop hives appeared. Cities proudly declared themselves bee-friendly because they added honey bee colonies.
People were trying to help. But ecosystems are complicated, and sometimes good intentions collide with ecological reality.
Honey bees aren’t villains. They’re remarkable insects, essential agricultural workers, and deeply tied to human food systems. But they are also domesticated livestock — managed animals moved by humans across landscapes. And when conservation becomes focused on one highly visible species, we risk overlooking the rest of the ecological story.
And that story is much bigger.
The Real Problem Isn’t Bees — It’s Us
Pollinators aren’t struggling because of a single factor. They’re struggling because humans simplified the world.
We removed:
diverse native plant communities,
continuous seasonal bloom,
nesting habitat,
structural complexity in landscapes.
We replaced them with lawns, monoculture agriculture, ornamental plantings with limited ecological value, and heavy chemical inputs.
Then we asked a single species — the honey bee — to solve a system-wide ecological collapse.
That was never going to work. Research consistently shows that habitat loss and resource scarcity are among the biggest drivers of pollinator decline. Native bees evolved alongside native plants and rely on intact ecosystems to survive.
Honey Bees Are Not the Enemy — But They Are Not Neutral
This is where the conversation gets uncomfortable.
Honey bees matter. They pollinate crops and support agriculture worldwide. But decades of research show that in certain contexts — especially where habitat is limited or hive density is high — honey bees can impact native pollinators.
Not because they’re “bad.”
Because they’re incredibly successful.
Here’s what the science says can happen:
1. Competition for Food
A single hive can contain tens of thousands of bees. That’s a massive demand on local pollen and nectar supplies. In landscapes already lacking flowers, native bees may struggle to compete. Research shows that as few as 3.5 hives per square kilometer could have detrimental impacts to native bee health and competition for resources.
2. Disease Spillover
Pathogens carried by honey bees can transfer to wild bees through shared flowers, potentially impacting native populations.
3. Changes to Plant Communities
Honey bees may favor certain plants — including non-native species — potentially altering pollination networks and reducing reproduction in some native plants.
4. Declines in Native Bee Diversity Near Apiaries
Some studies show native bee abundance and diversity can decrease when managed honey bee densities increase, then rebound when hive pressure is reduced.
Again — this doesn’t mean honey bees are bad. But the activities of human beings may be - at least for native bees.
It means ecology is about balance, not heroes and villains.
The Bigger Mistake: Thinking We Could Save Pollinators Without Restoring Habitat
For a long time, conservation messaging focused on individual actions:
buy a hive,
build a bee hotel,
plant “bee-friendly” flowers.
But ecosystems don’t run on individual species, they run on relationships.
Native bees are incredibly diverse — thousands of species across North America alone — and many have specialized relationships with specific plants, soil conditions, or nesting materials.
Some need:
bare ground,
hollow stems,
dead wood,
leaf litter,
specific native flowers that they have evolved to specialize on.
You cannot replace that complexity with a single managed pollinator.
What Actually Helps (According to Science and Experience)
Across state extension programs, conservation groups, and peer-reviewed research, the same solutions keep showing up:
Plant native plants adapted to your region.
Increase structural habitat — shrubs, trees, leaf litter, stems.
Reduce pesticide use.
Support diverse bloom from early spring through fall.
Think ecosystem-scale, even in small gardens.
Native plants are foundational because they restore ecological relationships — not just feeding pollinators, but supporting entire food webs.
The Shift That Needs to Happen
The real lesson here isn’t that we saved the wrong bees. It’s that conservation has evolved.
We are moving from:
Save the bees to Restore ecosystems.
That shift matters. Because once you start restoring ecosystems:
Honey bees benefit.
Native bees benefit.
Butterflies, birds, soil microbes, and entire landscapes benefit.
And perhaps most importantly — people reconnect with nature in a way that is deeper than simply managing a single species.
The Future of Pollinator Advocacy
The next chapter of pollinator conservation isn’t about choosing sides between honey bees and native bees.
It’s about recognizing that pollinators are indicators of ecosystem health.
Policies should focus on:
native plant restoration,
habitat corridors,
pesticide reduction,
ecological landscaping standards,
and biodiversity-first urban planning.
We don’t need more slogans; we need more habitat. Because when ecosystems recover, pollinators don’t need saving — they thrive.
A Final Thought: Follow the Science — and Ask Better Questions
One thing that stands out when reading articles like the recent Washington Post piece is how often they rely on research that is roughly five to fifteen years old. That raises an interesting question: where is the newer data, and why isn’t it always front and center in public conversations?
There are several possible explanations. Scientific research moves slowly, especially when studying long-term ecological trends, and older foundational studies are often cited because they established the baseline understanding we still build on today. Funding priorities also shape what gets studied — honey bees receive significant research attention because of their agricultural importance and economic value. Some critics suggest that industry influence or strong agricultural advocacy networks can amplify certain narratives over others, while native bee research may receive less funding and visibility. At the same time, newer studies may exist but simply haven’t reached mainstream media yet, or journalists may rely on widely cited, peer-reviewed research that has stood the test of time.
Whatever the reason, it’s a reminder that when reading articles about pollinators — or any environmental issue — it’s important to look at the research behind the headlines. Ask what studies are being cited, when they were published, and whether new evidence is emerging that shifts the conversation.
Perhaps the biggest takeaway is this: in many urban and suburban settings, we probably don’t need more honey bee hives in our backyards. What we need more of is habitat. Plant native flowers and shrubs, leave stems and nesting spaces, reduce chemicals, and create diverse landscapes. When we focus on restoring forage and habitat rather than managing livestock pollinators, something remarkable happens — native bees show up on their own, and ecosystems begin to rebuild themselves.
read more
University Extension & Conservation Science
Xerces Society: Habitat-first approach to helping bees
WSU and conservation research on native bee importance (PDF download)